roadtrafficlaw.com

Tel 0800 612 9597

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.