Police / Lawyer Legal advice urgently needed please 🙏🏽

[Newfor2021]

Hello,
I’d greatly appreciate any advice from someone with a professional background who might be able to offer any advice in these circumstances please?

My son was caught driving his car as a learner driver without a responsible driver / supervisor.

As he’s 17 they de-arrested him at the scene, brought him home, told me (I’d been asleep) and have now fixed an interview date for Wednesday.

My question is there are some mitigating circumstances which will support his reasons as to why he was driving.
Should he just verbalise them in the interview or should he prepare a written statement beforehand? He could also ask some of the people involved to write supporting testimonies - again should he just say these people are prepared to do this or should we gather these before Wednesday?

Thank you in advance for any professional guidance.

A few questions I suspect I will get asked:

He’s planning to plead guilty and at the time apologised profusely and immediately stated why he was going and where he was driving to.

I was going to use the duty solicitor - however I have been advised to ignore their advice to go ‘No comment’ as this will only annoy the police and stop them having the ability to go more lenient on him.

I am in no way supporting or condoning his behaviour!
I am of course dealing with the consequences of his actions - however my child is in his first ever legal trouble and as his mum I will do everything in my power to help and support him from obtaining a criminal record at 17 - as believe it or not he wants to join the police force and this would of course stop him!

My gosh. His insurance will be sky high when he’s able to drive again. If he’s even able to get insurance. My friends 17 yr old sons insurance was some £950 a month without legging it from the police

Ouch

@Brunt0n

He should be doing this research not you. A lesson he needs to learn, not mummy sorting it for him. What an idiot he’s been

Spot on.

Too many posters far too keen to minimise very dangerous criminal behaviour.

[quote Donkeydonut]@thedancingbear what do you gain by posting that? Is it some inner rage? Or wanting to use op to make a wider point? Make her feel more awful than she already does?

Honestly can’t comprehend the thought process of some of you on here. If you think that your darling toddlers won’t ever step out of line or it makes you feel safer to decide it’s down to bad parenting, then you are wrong.

I would also take some of the posters claiming to be police with a huge pinch of salt. It’s the internet and even if they are the local pc, they are not qualified to give expert advice.

Actually, I hope the op has hidden this thread now with its sanctimonious and pointless lectures.[/quote]
Honestly can’t comprehend the thought process of some of you on here. If you think that your darling toddlers won’t ever step out of line or it makes you feel safer to decide it’s down to bad parenting, then you are wrong.

No one has commented on OPs parenting, other than to criticise her actions at trying to get it so they he evades any sort of reprucisons for his actions. Stop projecting. If my toddler when he is older does this, i accept he will face the consequence rather than teach him to try and weasel out of it. My brother was horrendous growing up and my parents were always doing the same, it was pretty pathetic in honesty.

@Donkeydonut this is hardly specialist law. Your ‘local pc’ who is actually a thing of the past as numbers no longer support that structure in any meaningful sense, has to learn the same law as any other copper.

But, yes, take it with a pinch of salt.

Just out of curiosity

What were the mitigating circumstances?

I doubt that they would listen to any mitigating circumstances, it's fairly black and white. He drove without an appropriate experienced driver, there will be a range of punishments the Cory can dish out. If he seems apologetic and remorseful it is likely to go better than if he is not but ultimately he's broken the law and must pay the price.

@Bunnyfuller

Police here - he broke the law. Would be interested to hear ‘mitigating circumstances’. If he goes No comment he loses any chance of mitigating circumstances. The interview is his chance to present his version of events. Going guilty late doesn’t tend to land well

This is absolutely not true.

Mitigation is what is provided as an explanation for your behaviour during sentencing. It is not a defence and therefore irrelevant to the interview process. Whether he gives a no comment or full comment interview he will be entitled to present his mitigation in court.

An “early guilty plea” for which full credit is applied can be provided following a no comment interview on the first court appearance. For a driving offence a no comment interview is going to make no discernible differences to the sentence.

@Sanchez79

If he pleads guilty to the offence he gets a criminal record OP. The court will then determine the punishment which as you say could be a fine or community service, but he will still have a criminal record either way.

I don’t think that is necessarily the case. A google search will yield many results such as this:

www.motoroffence.co.uk/will-my-conviction-for-a-motoring-offence-show-up-on-a-criminal-record-check/

Criminal barrister.

1. Most criminal LA firms do duty work. There isn't a blanket duty = no comment policy;

2. He was caught DOTIAWAL with no insurance and ran;

3. He was then arrested;

4. The best mitigation in ANY case where someone is guilty is an early plea. Admissions in interview are the first point;

5. If he has any sort of justification for this, he needs to tell his solicitor, who will then advise if it is in his interest to bring up in interview;

6. If nothing is said at all in interview, then a caution is ruled out. If he fully admits the offences, it is possible, but unlikely;

7. In terms of sentence, it will depend of course on what he is charged with. If they add a resist/obstruct for the running then that changes matters. As above, the best mitigation will be his plea, then previous good character and then personal circumstances'

8. Looking ahead, these aren't the worst convictions to have. Don't rule anything out for him;

9. Good luck. Feel free to PM.

I’ve swung back and forth about whether to post on this but I’m concerned that the sensible advice you had has been subsequently overshadowed.
Driving otherwise than in accordance and no insurance are absolute/strict liability/state of affairs offences. So the police ‘only’ need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that happened. Which by your own admission it did. Mitigation is for sentencing not as a defence to say that the offence itself didn’t happen.
The resist/obstruct re the running away (or any potential twoc- but I think that a twoc is unlikely, likewise any cause/permit offences but I don’t know the full circs) isn’t but I’m not going to go into that.
The police (unless they’re not very good) are not making a value judgement on your son. They’ve already been pretty reasonable (he could’ve justifiably spent the night in custody but they de arrested him and have invited him in voluntarily). They aren’t judging him, the decision maker is judging whether or not they think they can prove that the offence happened.
And duty varies- they could be a solicitor or a legal rep and there are good and bad in both. But a recommendation is not such a gamble.

This happened to my ex when we were in college! He got his provisional taken away and a two year ban from driving.

@Brunt0n

He should be doing this research not you. A lesson he needs to learn, not mummy sorting it for him. What an idiot he’s been

maybe he is, but you can't blame a parent for getting involved!

He's very lucky. No one crashed into him, he didn't cause an accident. That is sheer luck. Don't forget that.

So the police ‘only’ need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that happened

Just as an aside - I’ve defended three cases where the prosecutor hasn’t called evidence that there was no licensed supervising driver, resulting in a no case to answer direction by the clerk at half time.

OP, I have sent you a PM

So no mitigating circumstances, no essential emergency, just bring a prat

To be fair OP was at pains to say there were mitigating circumstances which supported his need to drive - in fact this formed the thrust of her opening post

However despite being asked repeatedly she's chosen not to say what they were, so who knows?

[quote MummytoCSJH]@Belinda554 literally any driver ‘could’ kill someone in the wrong circumstances. I’m obviously not excusing what OPs son has done but there are a lot of young people who have been unable to take their test due to COVID - mine has been cancelled 4 times - who have been taught to drive and can drive perfectly safely. The boy was not drunk or on drugs. It was reckless but there is nothing to say that in this situation he was more likely to cause a problem than any other driver. There are old people on the road I know who I don't consider necessarily safe, but of course, they get to keep their licenses regardless. It was entirely random that he was even caught.[/quote]
Ehhhh? He hasn’t passed his test!!! Just because you think they are safe, doesn’t mean an examiner would! So no, it’s not the same as an average person as they have been deemed to be proficient enough to drive!!

It’s like saying, well my dd can just prescribe you some medication- because she’s finished uni in a few weeks so it’s fine.... errrr no it’s not fine!

Also the insurance would be void because he shouldn’t have been driving, so had he seriously injured someone, they’d get no financial help from the insurance at all

Lots of silly comments about duty solicitors. There are few criminal defence solicitors who aren’t also be a duty solicitors. It is true that if you use the duty you don’t get to choose and therefore (like any profession) quality varies. However, for the 330 days of the year they aren’t being a duty solicitor they will be giving advice to their own clients.
The person you call by choice almost certainly is a duty solicitor.

Absolutely. The duty solicitor will have to pass some sort of a selection process.

Also don’t take legal advice from a police officer even if they are a friend.Bit shocking that an officer has got involved in a ongoing case

@Nishky

Lots of silly comments about duty solicitors. There are few criminal defence solicitors who aren’t also be a duty solicitors. It is true that if you use the duty you don’t get to choose and therefore (like any profession) quality varies. However, for the 330 days of the year they aren’t being a duty solicitor they will be giving advice to their own clients. The person you call by choice almost certainly is a duty solicitor.

Absolutely. The duty solicitor will have to pass some sort of a selection process.

Also don’t take legal advice from a police officer even if they are a friend.Bit shocking that an officer has got involved in a ongoing case

Absolutely agree.

@Pythonesque

Not trying to ask for details, but for those who "can't imagine what mitigating circumstances there could be", one scenario that springs to mind is being out with friends who were supposed to be giving you a lift home, only the driver is drunk and won't be persuaded to get a taxi; so in desperation you suggest that you should drive instead.

Somehow I don't think that's going to cut it!!

@Newfor2021 I haven’t read the whole thread, but just to say you are not alone. My son did something similar last year. He was called in for interview, used a solicitor & the end result was NFA. I wasn’t there (because there was a separate issue re aggression to me so I couldn’t be his appropriate adult) but I understand it was dropped because there was no proof of who had been driving. But anyway, my point is that it never once occurred to me that that would be the outcome, nor to anyone with whom I discussed it. So all those posters telling you definitively what will or won’t happen may not be right. I’d say make sure he has a solicitor yes & a robust & calm appropriate adult (you may or may not be the right person) & try & stay calm & deal with the outcomes when you know what they are.

A neighbours children (twin boys) were caught under similar circs, driving their dad's car underage, without licences or insurance. Their defence was that insurance was too expensive for 16 year olds!! At the very least it gave everyone a good laugh.

They got hefty fines and driving bans that meant they couldn't sit their tests for some years but it didn't ruin their lives. They are reasonably responsible family men now.

[quote Donkeydonut]@thedancingbear what do you gain by posting that? Is it some inner rage? Or wanting to use op to make a wider point? Make her feel more awful than she already does?

Honestly can’t comprehend the thought process of some of you on here. If you think that your darling toddlers won’t ever step out of line or it makes you feel safer to decide it’s down to bad parenting, then you are wrong.

I would also take some of the posters claiming to be police with a huge pinch of salt. It’s the internet and even if they are the local pc, they are not qualified to give expert advice.

Actually, I hope the op has hidden this thread now with its sanctimonious and pointless lectures.[/quote]
I don't think thedancingbear was wrong to make that point because it's true, isn't it? I think it's actually wrong of you to tick her off, Donkeydonut, there's enough written experiences posted here and in the press to back up the statement.

thedancingbear hasn't been sanctimonious and finger-wagging as so many posters have with their faux-concern and frantic googling in their rush to post judgemental nonsense.

I think there are some genuinely qualified legal eagles on the thread and their advice seems consistent and uniform. That said, only OP and her son know the extent of what actually happened so until OP does get a solicitor involved, any further advice is moot.

I feel very much for the OP, it's a shocking situation, unexpected and it has potential ramifications for her son that could impact his future. Who wouldn't feel sorry for her? I also feel sorry for her son; how many of us at that age didn't do stupid things without a care or thought for impacts? I know I did... no consequences but, there could have been.

I haven't rtft but from your posts it appears to me that you're making the fundamental mistake that lots of people make when they've got no prior experience with the police in that you're approaching this situation as if it were an interpersonal back and forth where one person highlights an error and the other admits to it and all is well.

This may be beneficial in the workplace or in school but it is not beneficial when dealing with the criminal justice system.

When the police picked your son up they were setting in motion a chain of events that would lead to a penalty for him. They're not going to deviate from that regardless of how nice and honest any of you are. All you can do now is make it easy for them to visit state sanctions on him or make it harder. A solicitor will do their best to get the latter outcome. A solicitor will do their best for your son. They know all the ins and outs and how to play it, and you very much do need to play it.

Any solicitor will do. If you don't have one, duty is fine. Whichever one you pick will be on duty rota sometime this week anyway.

As for your copper friend saying plead guilty, well colour me surprised that a copper likes it when people plead guilty. Much less work for them. Don't listen to coppers.

@RumpoleoftheBaileys

Criminal barrister.

1. Most criminal LA firms do duty work. There isn't a blanket duty = no comment policy;

2. He was caught DOTIAWAL with no insurance and ran;

3. He was then arrested;

4. The best mitigation in ANY case where someone is guilty is an early plea. Admissions in interview are the first point;

5. If he has any sort of justification for this, he needs to tell his solicitor, who will then advise if it is in his interest to bring up in interview;

6. If nothing is said at all in interview, then a caution is ruled out. If he fully admits the offences, it is possible, but unlikely;

7. In terms of sentence, it will depend of course on what he is charged with. If they add a resist/obstruct for the running then that changes matters. As above, the best mitigation will be his plea, then previous good character and then personal circumstances'

8. Looking ahead, these aren't the worst convictions to have. Don't rule anything out for him;

9. Good luck. Feel free to PM.

Above is good advice.

Would add:

1. Motoring convictions can impact employment, but it depends on the nature of the employment.
2. He made a mistake, we've all made mistakes when younger. He'll learn from it if you let him.
3. Definitely consult a solicitor they are the only ones who can advise if his circumstances are valid justification as defense.

Why would he not plead guilty. He was guilty. The police know it. He knows it, and that he tried to run away. Just face up to it, and let him face the consequences of what he did. He will be better for it in the long run than having his Mum try and get him off. There is no mitigation is there?