“Words cannot express how happy I am with the service you provided.By pure chance I came across your website and was not sure if I could trust a solicitor firm that was not local.  How wrong I would have been if I went elsewhere.  You have been fantastic!

You definitely get what you pay for with Patterson Law.  I would be more than happy to tell anybody how professional, polite and organised you were from start to finish.

Words cannot express how brilliant you and your staff are at what they do. You are all a credit to the industry that you work in and there is always somebody at the end of the phone when you need them.  Thank you so much – without Patterson Law, I would be without my driving licence.” June 2010

"Patterson Law managed to select, recruit and retain staff with amazing client oriented skill. I was pleasantly surprised to see that everyone was able and willing to provide excellent, effective and efficient service in a cordial and easy going manner. Ms. Patterson appears to be one of the very few legal professionals having not only an excellent mind but also a very good heart. While dealing with my case Patterson Law demonstrated the highest competence, empathy and sensitivity I could have wished for and I take this opportunity to express my gratitude and to wish Patterson Law every success for the future."

The case was run by Jemma Hurrel, Senior Team Leader under Emma Patterson's supervision.

Date of offence - (Friday!) 13th March 2009. Speed check conducted at

Temple junction on the A30. Officer parked on hardstanding designed for

that purpose. Operating a Provida device carrying out a pre-fed check.

The reference points used for the check were the tip of directional

arrowheads for Colliford Lake and a painted square on the carriageway.

Raised concerns over Officer's ability to accurately see the first reference

point, which was 0.5miles away (about 8 full sized football pitches away).

From Officer's position, three large road signs formed

a barrier to a complete view of the road. Our client was adamant that the

officer began the speed check on a different car, which then braked

suddenly, and captured our client's car emerging from behind the screens,

giving a false reading of the client's speed.

In the Crown Court proceedings our client re-enacted scene, using video footage

from both Officer's position and overhead bridge, giving a different angle.

The Crown Court Judge stated that the only question to be considered was whether

or not he could be sure that the same car emerged from behind the barrier as

that which the Officer had begun the speed check on. He found that he could

NOT be sure, therefore the appeal was allowed.

To support our argument, we raised various points in ACPO which state that

the Officer carrying out the speed check must have constant and unobstructed

view of the vehicle in question throughout the duration of the speed check.

In this case, when measuring the time the cars were hidden behind the

screens on the video footage, it could be seen that the barrier is formed

for approximately 30% of the check.

Patterson Law.

Page 1 of 7  > >>