Keeping a Motor Vehicle Without Insurance

In today's article I am going to explore one of those niggly little offences that a lot of people don't even realise is an offence - keeping a motor vehicle without insurance.

I was recently chatting to a lawyer friend about this and even he was totally oblivious to the rules.

It is an offence under section 144A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the registered keeper of a vehicle to keep that vehicle unless it is covered by a valid policy of insurance and:

• Either, the policy of insurance identifies that particular vehicle by its registration mark;
• Or, the registered keeper of the vehicle is also the owner, who is named on the policy or certificate of insurance as a person covered to drive any vehicle or any vehicle of that particular description.

The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000). The offence, which is dealt with via the Single Justice Procedure, is non-endorseable.

In practical terms this means is that if a car is not insured then it should not be parked on a road or other public place. It can only be parked in a private place and must be covered by a valid SORN.

The DVLA receives a notification when the insurance on a vehicle lapses. It then uses automatic number plate recognition technology to identify uninsured vehicles that are parked on the road or other public place or that are kept elsewhere but without a valid SORN.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Magistrates Refuse Guilty Plea

Whenever a defendant appears before the court for the first time they are asked to enter (summary) or indicate (either-way) a plea.

Indictable offences are sent straight to the Crown Court without a plea being taken.

The defendant will usually be represented at the first hearing. Having discussed the options with their representative they usually have no difficulty in deciding whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

A defendant who pleads guilty is immediately convicted of the offence, which could obviously have long-term ramifications for them. It therefore follows that a guilty plea should never be entered/indicated unless the defendant is absolutely sure of that decision and its consequences. A guilty plea should never be entered/indicated simply for the sake of convenience.

Appearing recently before the court was a man accused of low value criminal damage and two assaults by beating. All of these are summary offences. He had discussed matters with his solicitor prior to the hearing and it was agreed, so the solicitor thought, that he was to admit all three offences.

The Legal Advisor put the matters to him. The replies came: "Guilty"; "Guilty"; "Not Guilty". Cue a very confused looking defence solicitor, who was adamant that guilty pleas had been agreed moments earlier.

Turning to face the defendant in the dock, the solicitor said: "I thought it was guilty to all three?"

Defendant: "Nah, I hadn't [inaudible as whisper mode activated", replied the defendant.

"Oh, go on then... guilty".

Presiding Justice: "Mr Brown, you said you were not guilty just a moment ago. Do you need more time to consider matters, or are you now sure?"

Defendant: "No, she has just told me to plead guilty".

At that point the three Magistrates rolled back slightly to get their heads together in a group huddle.

After a few moments of discussion, the Presiding Justice said: "We're not prepared to accept that plea as you seem rather uncertain, so we're going to ask for the matter to be laid down for trial".

With that the advocates were asked to complete the relevant PET form and a trial was listed.

The defendant was advised to have a good chat with his solicitor in the meantime.

In the event that the defendant decided to persist with his guilty plea, then the court would preserve his credit for an early guilty plea. A separate case management hearing could be listed for him to enter that guilty plea prior to trial.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Powers of the Litter Police

Littering is unsightly and unhygienic.

People who litter are lazy and inconsiderate.

Littering is also costly. According to campaign group Keep Britain Tidy, the cost to the public purse of cleaning up litter is almost £1 billion a year. That's £1 billion that could be far better spent on fixing potholes and unblocking drains.

Today's article is inspired by one of those social media muppets with a camera. On this occasion the aforementioned muppet was generating content by hassling a council enforcement officer who was dealing with someone for dropping litter. Clearly another graduate of the University of Temu School of Law, they thought it would be funny to undermine the officer and (incorrectly) tell the suspected litter-dropper that they had no powers.

It is an offence under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for a person to throw down, drop or otherwise deposit any litter on public land. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 (£2,500).

What tends to happen is that anyone observed dropping litter is given the opportunity of accepting a fixed penalty notice as an alternative to prosecution. For that reason the only people we see before the court are those that wish to deny littering, or those that have refused or somehow defaulted on the fixed penalty.

Fixed penalties, which are typically £150, are issued under section 88(1) of the Act. A fixed penalty must be issued by an authorised officer of a litter authority - e.g. a council employee authorised for that purpose.

Under section 88(8A) an authorised officer may require the name and address of a person to whom they intend to issue a fixed penalty notice. It is an offence under section 88(8B) for a person to refuse to provide their details, or to give false details. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

As some lazy litterers are prone to giving false details, an authorised officer will normally try to confirm their identity at the time of issuing the fixed penalty. They do this by asking for identification documents, using council systems (council tax, electoral register, business rates etc) or a combination of the two.

You might be wondering how an authorised officer can possibly establish the identity of an uncooperative person on the street. The first thing they will attempt to do is get the assistance of either a PCSO or police officer.

If a PCSO attends, they can detain the person for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a police officer. If a police officer attends, they can require the person to provide their details for the purpose of being reported for an offence (e.g. the littering and/or refusal to give details). If the person still refuses, then that is sufficient grounds for the officer to arrest them in order to establish their identity.

If there is no PCSO or police officer available, which will often be the case, then the council will probably try to establish their identity from any body worn video footage, CCTV footage, details on a dropped receipt/ticket etc. It's amazing how many people give the details of a friend, relative, housemate etc, so the council will often investigate that possibility too.

So, in short, if you're suspected of dropping litter and an authorised officer asks for your name and address, you are legally obliged to provide those details and can be prosecuted if you do not. If you refuse to give your details it is probably not the end of the matter.

Take it from me that the court is likely to be unimpressed by anyone caught dropping litter who gives an authorised officer the run around.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Lancashire Funeral Assistant Stole Ring from Body of Priest

A Lancashire funeral assistant stole an expensive gold ring from the finger of a deceased priest entrusted to his care.

Nicholas Mather, 34, of Willow Close, Chorley, admitted two offences of theft when he recently appeared at Preston Magistrates' Court.

He was sentenced by the same court on Friday, 16th October 2026.

Theft is an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentence for theft is 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.

Mather was previously in the employment of B Livesey Limited Funeral Directors in Chorley, although it must be said that the company is aghast at his dishonesty and in no way culpable for his crimes.

In the course of that employment Mather was entrusted with the care of the deceaseds' bodies and their personal effects. Father Peter Crowther, a Roman Catholic priest, died on 1st March 2026 and the company was entrusted with his funeral arrangements.

On 8th March, as Father Peter's body lay at the business premises, Mather removed an 18-carat ring from his finger. The 34-year-old was working out his notice at the time, with concerns having already been raised about his attitude to work.

The ring had high sentimental value, having been given to Father Peter by his parents as an ordination present. It was inscribed with the words "TU ES SAC ERDOS IN AETERNUM", which translates to "I AM A PRIEST FOREVER", and it was his dying wish to be buried with it on his finger.

Having swiped the ring, which was valued between £3,000 and £3,500, Mather sold it to a pawnbroker for less than half its true value. He then used the proceeds to fund drugs. The ring was later melted down, so could not be recovered for Father Peter's family.

An investigation into Mather's conduct revealed that he had also stolen a Rolls Royce key box ring from the company (although I haven't the faintest idea what one of those is).

Father Peter's next of kin Kinga Gray-Grzecynska said: "This behaviour is utterly despicable, disgraceful and morally wrong.

"The theft was clearly premeditated and demonstrates a complete lack of compassion, respect and remorse, not only towards the deceased but also towards his family, friends, colleagues and all those affected by his actions."

Magistrates, who commented on "the worst case of theft they had heard", were of the view that Mather's crimes were serious enough to merit a community order.

The duration of the order has not been reported, but it included the requirement to complete 300 hours' unpaid work.

Mather was also ordered to pay £6,500 in compensation.

This is a horrendous crime. It represents the most gratuitous, evil breach of trust I have heard in a long time. There will be a lot of bereaved families in Chorley now worried, justifiably so, that Mather scavenged belongings from the coffins of their loved ones.

I have to say, on the basis of what I have read I am struggling to see how this can be anything other than a custody case (high culpability, at least category 3 harm). I take on trust that the bench concerned are aware of factors we aren't. However, even if the court had imposed a custodial sentence, I am sure that knight in shining armour, section 1 of the Sentencing Act 2026, would have come galloping to Mather's rescue.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.