|
We win speeding cases frequently and even
receive instructions from fellow solicitors in such cases.
We can make a difference in your case and you will find that
you are kept fully informed at all times.
We use e-mail extensively so that you can
obtain immediate responses and we can exchange documents
such as driving licences, insurance documents etc.
We subscribe to Lexis Nexis, the biggest
searchable law database in the UK. We have 24/7 access to
every piece of legislation applicable in the UK and we have
access to every influential case that has been decided. We
are the only firm in the UK to have ever visited the GATSO
Camera factory in Holland. We have our own, exclusive, in
house Knowledge base with recent, unreported cases. We do all of this to keep our
team ahead of the competition.
If you need our skill and expertise on
your side please do not hesitate to telephone or e-mail us.
SPEEDING
The flash of the camera is often the first indication that
criminal proceedings are to be contemplated by the
Procurator Fiscal (Similar to the CPP). That is probably
when the worry sets in. There is, however, no need to worry
if no formal notice, termed a Notice of Intended Prosecution
is received within 14 days. (Exceptions being where it
is a company car or a hire car)
In the event that the Procurator Fiscal’s office seek to simply initiate proceedings in the
absence of any NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) then
objection should be taken at the first calling of the case. A
lawyer would be able to advice you on how to take a proper
objection but you must explain to the lawyer when the
incident occurred and that you did not receive the NIP.
If you didn’t spot the flash, then you will be none the wiser.
The NIP can be issued verbally by Police Officers if you
have the misfortune of being stopped by the Police at the
time. In cases were injury or damage to property has
occurred then the requirement does not apply. We would
often advise accused persons to make no comment when
questioned by police, beyond formal details, for example
name and address. In road traffic cases, the accused
person, if required under Section 172 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988, is obliged to give information within his
knowledge about the identity of a driver of the vehicle
involved in any such incidents. Failure to provide such
information constitutes a separate offence. The court
of Human Rights recently decided that drivers do not have a
right of silence and ARE required to answer the identity
question in terms of Section 172 procedure.
After the matter has been reported to the Procurator Fiscal
then proceedings are likely to be initiated by way of
Summary complaint. The validity of a complaint depends upon
a number of factors. Typographical errors can generally be
disregarded, however more fundamental errors can bring the
case to an end before it has even got off the ground. A
fundamental nullity can not be amended and will vitiate
proceedings. Complex issues such as jurisdiction, time bar
and competency all require to be investigated.
The dramatic rise in the speeding prosecutions and the
increasing number of cameras and traps peppered around the
country are blatantly apparent to every motorist. It
is however, important to realise that these prosecutions are
open to challenge from a number of angles. Mistakes can
be made at the most basic level: In one of our recent cases,
it became apparent the distance allegedly travelled had been
underestimated by approximately one third, thus producing an
enhanced speed measurement. The Crown deserted the case on
the basis of the evidence presented by us in discussion with
them. No need for the expense of a trial!
Avoiding disqualification
If your 9 points are within three years of the present
offence (going from offence to offence dates) then you are
due to be disqualified under ‘Totting up procedures’. This
is where a driver, generally speaking, accumulates 12 or
more points in 3 years, will be liable for a mandatory
disqualification period.
However, all is not lost. You may be able to argue that
‘exceptional hardship’ would occur if you lost your licence.
But the hardship must really be exceptional. If you can
persuade the court that others would suffer badly – for
example, that they would lose their job or their business,
or be unable to pay their mortgage – then you might persuade
the court to impose the points but refrain from
disqualification. It is very difficult to persuade the court
not to impose the disqualification that the law says they
should impose. So you need experienced help to win the
argument.
Please note that
we
do not
condone the actions of motorists who put at risk their lives
and risk the lives of other road users. Approximately
300,000 deaths and serious injuries occur on
UK
roads every year, a proportion of which are caused by
speeding or drink driving, and increasingly by other
offences such as dangerous driving.
If all seems to be lost, then other factors can come into
place. The legislation permits further opportunities for a
motorist, after conviction, to retain his licence. If
what the court terms as "Special
Reasons" apply to the circumstances of the offence, the Court
can refrain from disqualification or endorsement.
Furthermore if the Court finds that "Exceptional Hardship"
would ensue if the motorist were to loose his licence then,
again, the Court will refrain from disqualifying. It must
be stressed that these are complex areas of the law and
legal advice should be sought at the earliest juncture.
|
