Before deciding to instruct Patterson Law, Mr X was asked to attend the police station under suspicion of dangerous driving after an alleged road rage incident.

It was at this police interview that Mr X admitted he was indeed driving at the time of the incident, but he denied the conduct described.

Whilst this was being progressed by the “right arm” of the police, the “left arm” simultaneously sent him a notice of intention to prosecute together with a request for driver information under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988, asking him to provide the identity of the driver. This was, of course, the same piece of information that was being requested (and was supplied) within the station interview.

During the interview, it became apparent that no offence had been committed, and the officers rightly informed the client that he would not be charged for any offence.

Unfortunately, the right arm was not speaking to the left arm, and the 172 document asking our client for more information was progressed as normal, inconsiderate of the matter having concluded after interview.

The officers responsible for the investigation at the station had forgotten to place the blocks on the progression of the s.172 notice. This meant that our client was charged to court for failure to respond to that document, even though he had provided the same information at the police station. It was at this point that he sought help from Patterson Law.

The CPS were contacted, and the abuse of process was highlighted. It was both legally and morally wrong for the client to have been told that he did nothing wrong, he could move on with his life – whist simultaneously being processed to Court for failing to provide information to the incident. Abuses of process like this from the police happen commonly than known and this incident proves that police practice should always be held to account with the necessary checks and balances.

The CPS saw reason with the argument before trial and therefore the case was discontinued, with costs awarded in our client’s favour.