This website is optimised to work with the most recent version of your browser software. make sure your browser is always updated to view the internet as it's supposed to be seen. Internet Explorer | Firefox

FREE ADVICE FROM A ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCE LAWYER WITHIN 24 HRS

Sorry we have let this page get behind somewhat. If you want to see our most recent interesting victories then look at the News Column on the right hand side of the Home Page.

Kind regards

Emma Patterson

 

Oct 09

My mum told me I was insured!

Our client was summonsed to court for driving without insurance. When he came to us for help, he already had 6 valid penalty points on his licence from a previous road traffic offence. If convicted of the current allegation, he would have received between 6-8 penalty points which would mean that he would have "totted up".

If the Magistrates awarded 6 or more points, he was at risk of receiving a minimum 6 month driving ban. As an HGV driver, he would have been unemployed for 6 months. He instructed us to try to preserve his licence.

Our client told us that the vehicle he was driving was owned by his mother and she was the main policyholder. He was a named driver on the policy. The time came for renewal and our client was reassured by his mother that she had already put insurance cover in place. He continued to drive on the belief that he was insured.

He was stopped by a Police Officer who told him he did not have insurance in place. It transpired that his mother had forgotten to renew the policy, despite telling him that she had. He had been misled into believing he had insurance.

In the first instance, we attempted to persuade the Crown to withdraw the case as our client was genuinely under the misapprehension that he was insured. No criminality occurred on his part and whilst we were able to invoke the Crown's sympathy, they would not withdraw the case.

We presented a successful Special Reasons argument at Court. The Magistrates were sympathetic to the client's position and the decision meant that he did not receive any penalty points for the offence. Further, they granted an absolute discharge so no fine or costs were imposed against him.

------------------------------

Mobile phone offence

March 09

When is a mobile phone not a mobile phone?

We recently won a case where our client argued that the "phone" that he was using whilst driving wasn't in fact a phone.

It was all to do with the frequency at which the device operated and it was a complex argument.

The prosecution agreed with us before trial that it wasn't a mobile and then tried to switch the charge to driving without due care and attention. They were outside of the limitation period (6 months) but the court agreed in the first instance to allow them to do this.

 

We asked the court to reopen the decision to allow the CPS to amend the charge to a different offence outside of limitation and the court then agreed with us. The amendment was refused and the CPS were forced to withdraw the mobile phone allegation.

Our client got a defendant's costs order in order that he be reimbursed his reasonable legal expenses. So effectively our services were for free.

Happy client = happy solicitors!

------------------------------

Construction and use offence

April 2009

The Dune Buggy without Mudflaps Case

On the 13th April we won a very interesting little case. Our client came to us because he bought a Dune Buggy for use on British roads.

The Dune Buggy did not have any mudflaps, but he had a Certificate of Conformity in order to confirms that the vehicle compliant with EU regulations.

Despite the fact that we get just over 81% of our cases withdrawn without the need for a trial, we were not able to get the Crown Prosecution Service to see sense in relation to this case, despite the fact that we served on them all the relevant legislation and a copy of the Certificate of Conformity.

It was not until the day of the trial that the Crown Prosecution Service actually agreed to 'throw in the towel'.

As a result, we managed to get our client a Defendant's Costs Order, which will reimburse his full  reasonable legal expenses.

In reality this case was disproportionately too complex to what was actually at stake for our client but sometimes a client feels the need to make a point of principle and, in this case, our client was absolutely right to do so and felt vindicated by this decision in that regard.

It was just a shame that the Crown Prosecution Service wasted so much public money by pursuing the matter so far and by failing to conduct a proper review of the case at an earlier stage, despite our copious representations inviting them to do so.

------------------------------

Please feel free to Ask a FREE question and see how we can help your case?