Dementia Patient Convicted in Fast-Track Court Over Uninsured Car He Cannot Drive
A 77-year-old man suffering from severe dementia has been convicted through a controversial fast-track court process for failing to insure a car he is now medically unable to drive, raising serious questions about the fairness of the system. The pensioner, who resides in Middleton, Greater Manchester, ceased using his Peugeot in December 2024, coinciding with his official dementia diagnosis from medical professionals.
Court Papers Reveal Confusion and Incapacity
Court documents indicate the man is currently "confused much of the time" and entirely incapable of managing his own affairs. He reportedly has no recollection of receiving a fine from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) regarding the uninsured vehicle, which was issued in August 2025. His brother only became aware of the escalating situation when the DVLA initiated a criminal prosecution earlier this month, prompting him to send a detailed letter to the court explaining the circumstances behind the unpaid bill.
Despite this intervention, the letter failed to halt the prosecution. A magistrate sitting in Derby convicted the man last Thursday of keeping a motor vehicle that does not meet insurance requirements, specifically for not having insurance on his car on August 12, 2025.
The Flawed Single Justice Procedure Under Scrutiny
The prosecution was brought under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), a fast-track court process designed in 2015 as a cost-cutting measure where magistrates sit privately to rapidly handle low-level criminal cases. A critical flaw in the SJP system is that prosecutors, such as the DVLA, do not see letters from defendants when they are submitted to the court. This design regularly results in missed opportunities to withdraw cases that are no longer in the public interest.
In his letter, the brother explained: "(He) is a 77-year-old pensioner who is suffering from severe dementia. His illness became prevalent in the latter part of 2024. He was officially diagnosed in December 2024. He was advised not to drive from then on." He added that around spring 2025, it was agreed he would purchase the vehicle, arranging for a new MOT, and that his brother did not drive at all in 2025, though he mistakenly told a doctor during a medical assessment that he was still driving.
"The severity of his dementia causes memory loss resulting in him being confused much of the time," the brother continued. "He is now incapable of managing his affairs to any degree and therefore I have only just become aware of this issue. (He) has no recollection of receiving any letters regarding this. I am currently seeking to obtain Power of Attorney to enable me to handle his affairs for him."
Outcome and Systemic Calls for Reform
The DVLA sent a fine notice to the pensioner in August 2025 and proceeded to prosecution when the penalty remained unpaid. Magistrate Louise Hammond accepted a guilty plea entered on his behalf by his brother and imposed a six-month conditional discharge instead of a fine. The Single Justice Procedure is currently under review by the Labour Government following complaints about its excessive secrecy and mounting evidence that vulnerable individuals, including sick pensioners and hospital patients, are being unfairly convicted.
The Magistrates' Association, representing magistrates across England and Wales, stated nearly two years ago that the system requires major reform, recommending changes such as requiring prosecutors to review mitigation letters before cases reach court. The DVLA supports this idea, informing ministers last spring that it would back such a modification.
The Government acknowledges concerns surrounding the Single Justice Procedure and continues to evaluate responses to a consultation on potential changes that concluded in May 2025. The DVLA emphasises that it urges anyone receiving enforcement letters to contact them if mitigating circumstances exist and that prosecutions occur only after unsuccessful attempts to resolve matters out of court. It notes that the power to refer mitigation letters back to prosecutors for public interest consideration currently rests with magistrates, and while a guilty plea was accepted, the DVLA retains the option to apply to reopen the case.
