I have a lot of sympathy, I really do, but...
1. You were found not guilty because you were able to introduce an element of 'reasonable doubt' into your case. This does not prove that you were innocent, which is an unfortunate side effect of 'innocent until proven guilty' - i.e., you are innocent because you were not proven guilty, not that you were proven innocent because you were not guilty.
2. The DVLA can do what it pleases in these matters unless you go for judicial review.
3. Going for judicial review will cost you far more in effort, and probably money, than simply retaking your test. Presumably you are now driving with valid insurance and your insurers know about your situation? If so, what have you got to lose?
4. Even if you went for judicial review, the courts would almost certainly throw out your case, not on the grounds that you are lying, but that the DVLA has no way of distinguishing you from someone who has no licence and is trying to get one by bureaucracy - and even if you say that you were found not guilty, there are plenty of people who have never been tried for it because they haven't been driving without a licence.
While I have every sympathy, you have been fighting this battle for long enough that people who were babies then have licences now. From a practical point, I'm sure you've got more important things to do with your life.
|
Take the advice of DavidHM.
Your going to get sheeted, at any pull, for No Driving Licence, alternatively fail to produce because you cannot produce one and DVLA have no record.
Dont forget too that because you cannot prove you have had or have a Licence and there is nothing at DVLA a keen Plod might just throw in a charge of No Insurance if your Certificate only covers those who hold or have held a DL...
DVLA will only acceed if you can prove by detail that you have a Licence. Where did you pass your Driving Test? Has that Centre a copy of the Pass certificate which will be doubtful after all this time.
If it was I then a re-test and back to normal and save self and Plod a headache.
DVD
|
|
May be worth checking with your employer or former employers. If you drive/drove for them in all likelyhood they would have asked you for a copy of your Driving Licence. You never know your luck.
|
hmm yes isee what you mean. basically Swansea, no matter howmany 'Mistakes' it makes is never going to admit liability.
btw, I wasn't found 'Not-Guilty' because I introduced reasonable doupt, the prosecutor was all out to try the case untill my solicitor introduced evidence of the fire. This is one of my main contentions. As the solicitor has now retired and diposed of her records as such this will be very difficult to find.
Driving test centers only hold a reference up till the 3 years, so that one has long gone.
So it seems that if they have a data loss or some malfunction and your record is lost, then thats tough as they say?
well I may not win but I sure as heck ain't giving up. I passed my test fair and square. I have had it proved in A Court of law, Not only Magistrates but Crown Court as well!
They have made this mistake and they can damn well admit it!
I think it's time for the 'European Courts of Rights'.
I've covered nearly every angle and because of the problems I just never drove so no insurance record as such...oh well the fight will continue as I'm to stubborn to give up.
thanks guy's and if any can turn up info in regards to my question I'd appreciate it.
Nice site btw will be back for a visit and I'll let you know the eventual out come.
|
btw, I wasn't found 'Not-Guilty' because I introduced reasonable doupt [sic], the prosecutor was all out to try the case untill my solicitor introduced evidence of the fire.
Sorry, that's exactly what I mean by introducing reasonable doubt.
There was a fire. Not all records were destroyed. Even if they were, there was no proof that yours was one of those that were destroyed. That is not proof that you were innocent, but the prosecutor realised that it showed there was a reasonable possibility that you did in fact have a licence but the records of it were destroyed. This would be enough for a judge or jury to find you not guilty, so (s)he decided it wasn't worthwhile pursuing the case.
As for the European Court - you can only get access to that by bringing a case in the UK courts. This is what would be called an application for judicial review in which the judge looks at the DVLA's actions and decides if they were legal. This would be very expensive and time consuming, plus you are way out of time on the original decision. You might be able to get around this by
a. applying for the licence again and, when you are refused, seek judicial review of the new decision (but the courts won't look kindly on this)
or
b. seek leave to overturn the UK's time limits on judicial review (which are particularly tight, it's true) under the right to a fair trial in the European Convention on Human Rights. This is also all but hopeless.
Incidentally, the grounds for judicial review are
a. irrationality - i.e., the decision is so bizarre that no rational decision maker could have reached it. This is a very hard test to pass, but in the absence of evidence, the DVLA's decision seems entirely rational to me - even if it is wrong in this particular case - and any judge would feel the same.
b. exceeding powers - i.e., they are doing something they are not allowed to do. They can - in fact must - refuse a license to people whom they feel do not have the right to one, so this is hopeless.
c. procedural unfairness - i.e., the decision is taken by someone who is biased against you. You will no doubt seize upon this but they are applying their rules to you in the same way as anyone else and, if you can provide evidence of a licence, they will listen, so this is a no-no.
and arguably
d. proportionality - i.e., the harm done by the public authority is greater than the harm it is seeking to avoid. In this case, you would have to show that the harm done to you and others like you by the DVLA, in seeking to avoid giving a licence to everyone who asks for one but about whom it has no records, is greater than the benefit to society in keeping drivers who have never passed their test off the roads.
This is why you are wasting your time. If you want to find out how expensive bringing a case would be, by all means ask a solicitor, but you will simply be told what I have set out above.
|
|
Nomad - I too don't really follow your problem, maybe I've just missed something in your explanation or perhaps you've left out some details. Anyway, you've obviously got a serious problem so why not try your MP - that's what he/she there for. In the past my MP has been very helpful in a number of matters. Just a long shot but I hope you sort it out.
|
btw, I wasn't found 'Not-Guilty' because I introduced reasonable doupt [sic], the prosecutor was all out to try the case untill my solicitor introduced evidence of the fire.
My apoligies this should read ["I wasn't found 'Not Guilty' Not because I introduced reasonable doubt".](Silly me, funny how missing one word changes how some thing reads) Again my apoligies, Though I am more intrested in your following comment :
[QUOTE]
Sorry, that's exactly what I mean by introducing reasonable doubt.
There was a fire. [/QUOTE]
And specifically "There was a fire." ! THERE WAS!! have you any reference to it? This is what I need the reference to the fire.
That is my main contention and the reason I was found 'Not Guilty' because that Fire covered quite a few Initials, mine being one. If I can get this reference, Swansea have allready said that will change things drastically ie they wil concede that they are wrong.
At the moment they are denuing any knowledge what so ever and state categorically that there was no fire, yet I know there was and now you confirm it.
I have that reference, I proove them wrong and 'THEN I hit them with judicial review. I don't think it will go that far, once I have the evidence, I think they will finally aqueise, at least I hope they will, but it all hinges on that proof.
So do you have any references? is please either post them here or contact me via e-mail if that is possible.
Thanks and sorry for not being more clear on this,
Nomad
|
I'm confused... your first statement at least made sense, though it seems to be factually wrong. Firstly I'm confused because you say that the prosecutor was 'set' to try the case, implying that they didn't, but then you say you were found 'not guilty' in a Crown Court. The Crown Court would normally only try this case on appeal from the magistrates, if you'd alreayd been found guilty at first instance, but you imply there was never any trial.
Secondly, I have no idea about what was going on in Swansea in the 1980s, other than that they built quite a nice marina down by the harbour. I was just taking you at your word. Sorry I can't be of more help.
|
Nomad,
I think I recently read that Cilla Black's license details had been lost in Wales too. Maybe the same event afflicted her.
|
|
|
Sorry, My apoligies again. I was found \'Not Guilty\' twice in magistrates. (Both offences were dealt withthe same day). I was then charged a third time a couple of years later and it was this one that went to Crown Court (I took it there, as is my right). The Judge there said, whicjh is the sme as an order because he had it entered into the record, \"That I am not to be charged with this offence again as I cannot be found \'Guilty\'.
He then Dismissed the case and entered a record of \'Not guilty\'
I\'m searching and correlating all or similar cases or as many as I can, so I can then say to Swansea, emmm excuse me \"But you are wrong here\".
In other words I prove it in a Court of Law, which is supposed to be the final say on the matter and they are saying they are higher than the Law of The Land!
I don\'t think so. Somehow my records were either Lost, destroyed or other-wise mislaid and they have to accept that and admit the mistake is there\'s. It\'s that simple and then they can re-Create a new record, issue me my Full Licence, which I am entitled to and the Law Courts have also said that I am entitle dto it by finding me \'Not Guilty\' on two seperate occasions.
So I fail to see why I should have to prove my self Innocent again, as this is ultimatelt the case as it now stands with Swansea.
That how ever is what I have to do, so if any one has any \'recored\' evidence at all, I really would appreciate links to them :)
thanks in advance,
Nomad
|
Why dont you
(a) Phone the local fire department to see if they can help.
(b) Go tothe local paper to check the archives?
(c) Speak to the local BBC.
All of these will have information on any fire that happended at the DVLA.
|
Nomad -
I am confused. You are insisting that
"Law Courts have also said that I am entitle to it by finding me 'Not Guilty' on two seperate occasions. "
Erm, no.
Not Guilty means there was insufficient proof or reasonable doubt.
How can the DVLA know that your records were in a fire (that did or did not happen?)
I would take sensible advice and do re-test.
|
|
|
|
