Will common sense prevail if I simply tell the magistrates what happened?
We speak to many people who had a potential defence but have failed miserably in trying to present their arguments to the magistrates. We know that it is really hard to understand, but sometimes the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates/legal advisers get the law wrong.
We end up appealing lots of cases where people have been unrepresented or have been represented by lawyers that do not specialise in motoring offence law and where we get the right outcome on appeal. For example magistrates will often impose a duty to keep records on an individual that works within the motor trade where they have been summonsed personally for failing to name the driver.
They suggest that because the person has not kept records have who was test driving the car they cannot use the reasonable diligence defence. This is incorrect. Having to initially prove that it was reasonable not to have a record of who was driving is only a burden placed on a body corporate, not an individual.
This is the kind of issue that we deal with day in day out and where our clients are horrified to realise that the law was applied incorrectly in the magistrates court. Having representation really does matter and sometimes common sense does not prevail.
You have to be able to apply the law correctly to the circumstances of your case and explain the statute/case law to the magistrates in the correct legal way.