tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post7472724120925891680..comments2024-03-08T14:35:24.649+00:00Comments on The Justice of the Peace Blog: SOMETHING IS MISSINGThe Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-50597488235826534862014-05-05T17:36:01.615+01:002014-05-05T17:36:01.615+01:00Does the 1978 Interpretations Act Section 7 not co...Does the 1978 Interpretations Act Section 7 not come into play here where Joe Bloggs does not have any means to prove postage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-2335423461956556682014-04-10T09:02:46.827+01:002014-04-10T09:02:46.827+01:00I look forward to par deux but in the meantime wha...I look forward to par deux but in the meantime what weight is placed on the defendant's tardiness? The situation arises as a result of a failure to respond within the statutory period - that is the fault of D. Since the reminder is but a courtesy why should D be given credit when breach of the statutory period had already occurred? OK, so the police could send out the reminder earlier. But as already acknowledged this is a courtesy and the onus is always upon D to respond within the statutory period and not place any reliance upon receipt of a reminder.<br /><br />The little red paragraph is of course somewhat at odds with the principle above and there is a strong case for its removal or rewriting but lets not lose sight of the fact that the statutory 28 days has been breached and that is the offence. How the bench deals with that is a matter for them based on the facts of the particular case. I can say only that on the detail so far adduced I would be finding the offence proved and would sentence without according weight to the timing of the reminder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com