A pensioner with vascular dementia has been convicted in one of Britain's controversial fast-track courts of not insuring a car she had not been able to drive since 2024.
The 76-year-old woman was prosecuted by the DVLA over the unpaid bill on a Ford car still registered in her name.
Her son-in-law answered the court papers, detailing how she has 24-hour care, she long ago gave up driving the vehicle, and she would be totally unable to understand legal documents which had been sent to her.
But the explanation was not enough to avoid a magistrate convicting the pensioner in the fast-track single justice procedure (SJP) court process.
The Government has spent the last year considering whether to make changes to the SJP system, which allows magistrates to sit in private to deal with low-level criminal cases.
Prosecutors, such as the DVLA, are not present when the case is heard, and they routinely do not see letters sent in with pleas, even if they contain important information about a defendant's health and mental capacity.
The DVLA itself has called for SJP reform so that prosecutors always see mitigation letters before a case is considering in court, for an extra check on the public interest of each prosecution.
Last week, retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson - in his independent review of the courts - said he is "supportive of efforts to enhance safeguards for defendants" in the SJP system, backing the idea of greater transparency as well as "ensuring that mitigation is taken into account".
The pensioner, from Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire, was prosecuted after the DVLA noticed in August last year that her car had not been insured.
"She lives in her own home with a 24-hour carer," wrote the son-in-law, offering to provide GP notes and care agreements as evidence.
"She still owns the car ... but it has been in her garage for over 18 months and it hasn't been driven.
"Her insurance wasn't renewed because she isn't able to drive any more but unfortunately the SORN was not completed.
"We are currently unable to find her V5C and logbook."
The DVLA said in its prosecution papers that an offer of a fixed penalty fine had been sent to the woman and she had not paid.
But the son-in-law said the first they knew of the problem was when the single justice procedure notice arrived in the post, setting out a criminal case had been launched.
"I am pleading guilty on her behalf (because we understand an offence has been committed) as we do not have up-to-date insurance for (her) but I think really the only offence here is that we didn't apply for the SORN," he continued.
"It is unclear to me what the fine might be as there is no explanation on the paperwork.
"If in fact (she) was trying to understand this on her own, it would be impossible for her as the paperwork is very overwhelming."
A magistrate sitting in Leicester convicted the pensioner of keeping a motor vehicle which did not meet insurance requirements after accepting the guilty plea entered on her behalf, but imposed an absolute discharge instead of a fine and costs.
The case was dealt with behind-closed-doors last month, with information emerging after a Press Association request to see court papers.
The DVLA says it does not routinely see mitigation letters like this one unless a magistrate decides to adjourn the case for further consideration of the public interest.
It supported the idea of reform in a Government consultation which ended last May, and has publicly urged anyone who is being prosecuted to contact the agency directly if they believe there is important information about the background to an unpaid bill which needs to be considered.
Court records show the DVLA brought more than 4,000 cases in the SJP system in the week that the pensioner was prosecuted, while the magistrate who handled the case convicted and sentenced 135 other defendants on the same day.
