case studies

motoring offences image

Our Motoring Offences team has complied a list of case studies for you. Click on the bookmarks below to view the relevant case studies.

For more information on any of these case studies, please contact Philip Somarakis, a partner in the Motoring Offences team, on 01865 254277; email philip.somarakis@bllaw.co.uk

naming the driver

failing to identify the driver and speeding case dismissed

Barry Culshaw of Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team was instructed by B who was facing proceedings before Swindon Magistrates Court brought by Wiltshire Constabulary whereby B was alleged to have been driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding a 70 mph speed limit on the M4 in Wiltshire and in the alternative was facing an allegation that he had failed to identify the driver of the vehicle. B was advised to plead not guilty to both counts as Mr Culshaw perceived that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Following representations from Mr Culshaw to the Crown Prosecution Service no evidence was offered by the Crown Prosecution Service on the date fixed for trial and both counts were dismissed.

failing to identify the driver case discontinued

IC consulted Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office with regard to an allegation of failing to identify the driver of a vehicle involved in an alleged speeding incident near Bentley, Hampshire. Barry Culshaw, as an experienced road traffic lawyer, made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service that the client had done all in her power to identify the driver within the appropriate time scale and had succeeded in identifying the driver within an acceptable period of time. As a result of the representations the Crown Prosecution Service decided to discontinue the proceedings which had been pending for trial at Aldershot Magistrates Court.

speeding

A27 Southampton Road, Titchfield, Hampshire update

On 8 October 2007, Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team represented C in regard to an allegation that C had exceeded the 40 mph speed limit on the A27 Southampton Road, Titchfield. On that date, District Judge Gillibrand acquitted C at the Portsmouth Magistrates Court on the basis that there were fundamental flaws to the speed limit signing at three of the junctions leading to the enforcement site. Following the acquittal, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence in respect of five other motorists facing similar allegations of speeding.

A further client, P, faced a similar allegation of speeding at the same location and appeared before District Judge Gillibrand for trial at Alton Magistrates Court on 9 September 2008. P was convicted of speeding despite the fact that the same signing flaws were in place as existed at the time of C's alleged offence and despite the fact that subsequent to P's alleged speeding offence the Highway Authority had changed the speed limit signing at all three junctions evidently to address concerns raised over the adequacy of the signing by a Traffic Management and Signing Consultant instructed by Barry Culshaw. Instructions have now been received from P to lodge an appeal to the High Court by way of case stated against this conviction.

length of disqualification after speeding reduced

Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team was consulted by D who had appeared before Southampton Magistrates Court with regard to a speeding allegation brought by Hampshire Constabulary and who had been disqualified from driving for a period of six months under the 'totting up' procedure. D had not previously sought legal advice. Barry Culshaw succeeded in applying to the Magistrates Court for a suspension of the period of disqualification and upon representing D on appeal before the Southampton Crown Court the period disqualification was reduced from six months to one month on the basis of exceptional hardship supported by medical evidence. As D had already served one month of the disqualification pending the order of suspension granted by the Magistrates Court D was able to drive immediately after the appeal hearing. The sentence of the Crown Court also resulted in D's driving licence being cleared of penalty points.

speeding fine reduced

Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team, based at our Southampton office, was instructed by L with regard to a sentence imposed by Fareham Magistrates Court. L had been prosecuted by Hampshire Constabulary for a speeding offence. The court had imposed a £666 fine together with £50 prosecution costs and endorsement of his driving licence with six penalty points. L had a valid reason for having declined a fixed penalty which had originally been offered to him by the police prior to the commencement of the court proceedings. Barry Culshaw succeeded in persuading the Justices to re-open sentence and having heard the detailed mitigation the Justices decided to set aside the original sentence and impose a £60 fine with three penalty points and no order as to costs.

speeding on A303 in Wiltshire

B instructed Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office with regard to an allegation brought by Wiltshire Constabulary of speeding on the A303 in Wiltshire. In addition B was alleged to have failed to identify details of the driver of the vehicle contrary to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. B maintained that he could not possibly have been speeding as he was out of the country at the time and, as such, could also not possibly have been the keeper of the vehicle. Representations were made by Barry Culshaw, an experienced road traffic lawyer, to the Crown Prosecution Service that the proceedings were unmeritorious and case law was cited. The Crown decided to discontinue both counts which had been pending before Salisbury Magistrates Court.

speeding on A29, near Chichester

Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office was consulted by W who faced an allegation of contravening a 40 mph speed limit on the A29 near Chichester, West Sussex. The client complained of inadequate signing of the 40 mph speed limit at the enforcement site and was proactive taking many photographic and video images of the alleged defects. A report from a traffic management and signing consultant was commissioned. Barry Culshaw, an experienced road traffic lawyer, served the relevant findings and photographic images upon the Crown Prosecution Service. A short time thereafter the Crown arranged to discontinue the proceedings before the Chichester Magistrates Court.

three speeding allegation dismissed

Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office was consulted by three clients all of whom faced prosecution for speeding brought by Hampshire Constabulary and were contesting the accuracy of speed readings produced by the LTI 20:20 laser speed measuring device. An expert was instructed to prepare reports in all three cases. The reports involved analysis of video tape evidence in each case comprising the entire speed enforcement session. The reports highlighted a number of apparent anomalies that were manifesting themselves during the sessions. In the expert's opinion the anomalies were indicative of a device malfunction and, accordingly, in the view of the expert the court was precluded from being able to rely upon the speed readings produced by the device.

Each client stood trial at Southampton Magistrates Court and at the conclusion of each trial the client was found not guilty. In each instance the District Judge in delivering his judgment expressed concern that he could not be sure that the speed reading in each instance could be relied upon. Each allegation of speeding was dismissed at the three locations concerned, namely, The Avenue, Fareham; Bridge Road, Salisbury Green; and Maybray Kingway, Bitterne, Southampton.

speeding on A303

Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office was consulted by P who had been summoned before Salisbury Magistrates Court in regard to an allegation brought by Wiltshire Constabulary of speeding on the A303 near Andover, Hampshire. The prosecution alleged that P was exceeding the 70 mph national speed limit for a dual carriageway by travelling at 104 mph. P was adamant that he was complying with the speed limit at the material time. The prosecution claimed that the police officer's prior opinion of excess speed was corroborated by a speed reading produced by an LTI 20:20 TSM speedscope laser speed measuring device. An expert's report was commissioned. Barry Culshaw, an experienced road traffic lawyer, represented P at trial where he was found not guilty, the court ruling that P was a credible and convincing witness, that there were breaches on the part of the police in complying with the relevant ACPO Code of Practice and the court could not be sure that it was P's vehicle that had produced the speed reading due to multiple vehicles in the vicinity of his vehicle at the time of the check and having regard to the beam spread of the laser beam at the distance at which P's vehicle had been targeted namely 676.5 metres.

128 miles per hour speeder

Philip Somarakis of the Motoring Offences team represented a driver accused by Thames Valley Police of driving at 128 miles per hour on the M4. It was one of the highest speeds that Philip has come across when defending speeding motorists. The driver naturally faced a substantial driving disqualification when he appeared at Newbury Magistrates Court. The court's sentencing guidelines recommend a ban of up to 56 days for speeds between 101 and 110 miles per hour. In this case, the driver was well above that. However, Philip was able to persuade the court to take a lenient view and the motorist was disqualified from driving for 60 days.

speeding on A27 Hampshire

G consulted Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office with regard to an allegation of speeding on the A27 Southampton Road, Titchfield, Hampshire. G was alleged to have been exceeding a 40 mph speed limit by driving at 70 mph. The signing of the speed limit was believed to be fundamentally flawed at a number of junctions. A Traffic Management and Signing Consultant was commissioned to carry out a site survey and prepare a report. As an experienced road traffic lawyer Barry Culshaw noted that the speeding summons was defective in that it referred to the speed limit being imposed by a Road Traffic Regulation Order which had in fact been revoked. During the trial at Portsmouth Magistrates Court the Crown were allowed to amend the summons but an adjournment of the trial was inevitable. The Crown decided to offer no evidence against G on public interest grounds.

motorcyclist has speeding case dropped in London

The Metropolitan Police accused our client of riding his motorcycle above the speed limit on the A406 North Circular in London. The police were using a laser device. Our client strongly denied that he was speeding so he contacted the London Motoring Offences team. Philip Somarakis represented the client at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court. The case against him was discontinued by CPS.

speeder has case dropped in North Wales

Philip Somarakis of the Oxford office of the Motoring Offences team was asked to assist a van driver who had been pulled over by North Wales Police for speeding. The device used was a Pro-Laser. The client strongly denied that he was speeding and a not guilty plea was entered at Llandudno Magistrates Court. The case was dismissed even before a trial date was set.

success in Bedfordshire for Motoring Offences team

Philip Somarakis of the Oxford office has successfully defended a client alleged to have been speeding. The police were using the LTI 20:20 device during some roadworks which were subject to a 40 limit. The client had denied entering the roadworks in excess of the speed limit. He maintained that he had slowed down in time. Following a successful submission by Philip, the case against his client was dismissed by the court.

speeding incidents in Southampton

Two clients consulted Barry Culshaw with regard to alleged speeding incidents in the Southampton area in a 30 mph speed limit. Initially both clients were disputing the accuracy of the speed reading produced by the LTI 20:20 laser speed measuring device. Following the obtaining of experts' reports both clients were advised to change their pleas to guilty. Both clients were liable for disqualification from driving under the totting up provisions and neither client was able to establish that the disqualification would occasion exceptional hardship. However, pursuant to Barry Culshaw's advice, both clients undertook voluntary driving courses which involved speed awareness. The justices declined to disqualify either client from driving, taking into account not only the length of time that had elapsed since the date of the alleged offences, but also noted the satisfactory completion of the driving courses.

careless driving

careless driving on Barnes Lane, Sarisbury Green

Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team based at our Southampton office was consulted by M who had received a notice of intended prosecution and request for driver details with regard to an incident of alleged careless/dangerous driving on Barnes Lane, Sarisbury Green, Hampshire. Hampshire Police requested interviewing facilities of our client after he had followed our advice and admitted being the driver at the material time. Barry Culshaw, an experienced road traffic lawyer drew to the attention of the investigating officer that the notice of intended prosecution appeared to have been served on our client outside the 14 day statutory time period. Our client received a letter shortly thereafter indicating that the police had decided that no police action would be taken in regard to the incident.

drink driving

drink driver has case dropped at Oxford Crown Court

Philip Somarakis of the Motoring Offences team acted for a client who appealed a drink driving conviction. He was involved in an accident and blood was subsequently taken from him for analysis. The police asked a forensic scientist to undertake a back calculation to try and prove that at the time of driving he was over the limit. However, the evidence from the police's forensic scientist was far from conclusive. In fact on one view, he would have definitely been under the limit. There is clear case law on this point which requires a court to be entirely satisfied that a person is over the limit, in order to convict based on back-calculation evidence. Our client was clearly aggrieved and appealed the decision of the Magistrates Court to convict him. In the Crown Court, the drink driving appeal was not opposed by the prosecuting barrister, who couldn't understand why the case was brought in the first place.

drink driver has case discontinued in Hampshire

Barry Culshaw of the Southampton office of the Motoring Offences team recently represented a client accused of drink driving. If convicted, our client faced a substantial period of disqualification. An issue arose over the continuity of evidence against our client. Having made representations regarding this case to the Crown Prosecution Service, the case against our client was discontinued.

fatal accident

Mr H faced an allegation of careless driving involving an accident, in which a motorcyclist died. He contacted Philip Somarakis of the Motoring Offences team. We sought expert evidence which we served on the Crown, highlighting that Mr H could not have been at fault. The proceedings were discontinued against Mr H before trial.

sentancing and mitigation

totting up disqualification

Our client had nine points on his licence, all for speeding. He was caught driving at 116 miles per hour. He was facing a driving disqualification of at least six months. He contacted Philip Somarakis of the Oxford office of the Motoring Offences team who represented him at Weymouth Magitsrates Court. He was disqualified from driving for 21 days and fined £400.

Other

failing to provide urine specimens

Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team was instructed by W who was facing proceedings at Fareham/Portsmouth Magistrates Courts alleging that he had failed without reasonable excuse to provide specimens of urine for analysis in connection with a drink driving incident. A consultant urologist was commissioned to prepare a report on the case and following service of the report the Crown decided to discontinue the case which had been brought by Hampshire Police.

road traffic accident

Miss F was driving along an A road in Kent when she witnessed an accident. She stopped to see if she could be of assistance but drove on after waiting for a while, believing that matters were in hand. She was shocked when the police wanted to interview her as a suspect. Another motorist had given the police her car details and told them she was at fault! She was prosecuted for careless driving, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report the matter to the police. She strongly denied having any direct involvement in the accident. We were instructed to represent her. We found faults with the police investigation. She was acquitted at trial of all three offences.