Money doesn’t buy you a road traffic offence defence !
This is an extract from BBC news regarding Nick Freeman’s recent failure to defend Chris Tarrant in relation to two Speeding Allegations.
Mr Nick Freeman tried to argue that the two speeding offences occurred on the same occasion as they were only 20 mins apart.
Our view is that this argument was doomed from the start ! The argument only works if you are heading in one direction and its one continuous act of driving. If you stop and start the journey, or turn around and come back again you cannot argue the allegation are one speeding offence. The case law is clear.
Mr Nick Freeman then went on to argue that it was an abuse of process to prosecute as the summons was received outside of the 6 month limitation period.
This argument was also doomed to failed. In order to succeed with this argument you have to prove that the summons was issued outside of the limitation period – not that it was received outside of that period. You also have to prove that the delay makes it more difficult for you to to defend yourself. Mr Tarrant would have known about these allegations when he first received the Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence ! See below for the story;
Chris Tarrant has been given six points on his licence and fined £525 after he was caught speeding twice within 21 minutes on the same stretch of road.
The television presenter’s Mercedes Benz CL500 was clocked at 47mph on the 30mph limit Broad Lane in Upper Bucklebury, Berkshire, on 20 May 2009.
The same speed check caught him doing 41mph on the road minutes later.
Mr Tarrant’s lawyer Nick Freeman – known as Mr Loophole – pleaded guilty on behalf of his client.
At Reading Magistrates’ Court, celebrity lawyer Mr Freeman argued that the speeding offences should be treated as having happened on a single occasion.
“The two offences occur 21 minutes apart on the same stretch of road in ideal traffic conditions,” Mr Freeman said.
“Had he been 20 minutes down the road going in the same direction you would probably have been of the view it was the same occasion.”
But District Judge Peter Crabtree rejected this opinion.
Arguing for an abuse of process, Mr Freeman said that two summonses for Mr Tarrant, 64, from Esher in Surrey, to appear in court went missing, meaning he received the third summons 11 weeks after the six-month time limit.
However the judge found the delay was not the fault of the prosecution and did not prevent a fair trial.
After the hearing, Andrew Perry, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “Chris Tarrant has today changed his plea to guilty… after his defence team had earlier failed to persuade the court that to try him would be unfair.
“The speed limit is there to protect the local community and by exceeding this speed limit Mr Tarrant – like any other driver – was potentially endangering the safety of other road users.”
The television presenter, who was given three points for each speeding offence, now has nine points on his licence. He was also ordered to pay £1,630 in costs.
Leaving court, Mr Freeman said there was no comment on behalf of his client.
From BBC news website.
You either have a defence or you don’t!
If you don’t you are better off pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity. The court costs if you do won’t be £1,630 like Mr Tarrant has just had to pay.
If you want a realistic assessment of your prospects of success, that’s exactly what we will give you at Patterson Law. We are brilliant Road Traffic Defence Lawyers and we do our job quietly and confidently in order to get the best results for our clients.
We don’t look for loopholes and we don’t publicise our services on that basis.
We will simply advise you on the law, any potential defences and the risks involved. Our success rates prove that we analyse our cases carefully and we only act for if we genuinely think we can help and you have good prospects of succeeding.