our experience
Our Motoring Offences team has compiled a list of case studies
for you. Click on the bookmarks below to view the
relevant case studies.
naming the driver
failing to identify the
driver and speeding case discontinued
Y contacted the Motoring Offences
team at Blake Lapthorn after receiving a summons alleging offences
of speeding and failing to name the driver of a motor vehicle when
required. Y was particularly concerned because the vehicle in
question could have been driven by any one of three people on the
day in question. Y had originally written to the Fixed Penalty
Office requesting a photograph but that proved inconclusive. Y
maintained that she had used reasonable diligence in trying to
identify the driver of the vehicle but had been unable to do so.
Philip Somarakis advised her about the strength of her case and
arranged for the case to be listed for a trial. After one telephone
call and a letter from Tim Williamson, also of the Motoring
Offences team, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the case
because they accepted there was not a reasonable prospect of a
conviction at trial. Y was extremely pleased and relieved to be
told the news.
View other speeding cases
failing to provide details of a speeding driver in
Dorset
M sought the advice of Philip Somarakis of the Motoring Offences
team with regard to a summons alleging failing to identify driver
details contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The request related to an alleged speeding incident and the
proceedings were instituted by Dorset Police. M was advised to
tender a not guilty plea on the basis that she maintained that she
was not the keeper of the vehicle at the material time and the
Crown's case was based upon an allegation that M was the keeper
when the alleged speeding incident occurred. The matter came before
the Lyndhurst Magistrates Court for trial when M was represented by
Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team. At the close of the
prosecution's case a submission of no case to answer was upheld by
the Lyndhurst Justices on the basis that they could not be
satisfied that M was indeed the keeper. An order for costs was made
in favour of M payable out of court central funds.
failing to provide details of a speeding driver in
Hampshire
Barry Culshaw was consulted by K with regard to an allegation
that he had failed to identify details of a speeding driver
contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The
prosecution had been brought by Hampshire Constabulary and came
before a District Judge for trial at Southampton Magistrates Court
on 2 June 2009. Mr Culshaw statemented witnesses to support K's
contention that due to problems with the post he had not received
the request for driver details. The District Judge accepted the
evidence and dismissed the case finding K not guilty.
driver accused of not providing driver details in
Oxford
Tim Williamson recently represented a motorist accused of not
providing driver details after an alleged speeding offence took
place near Oxford. The client maintained that he could not identify
who was driving because he was one of two people that used the car
and the photograph he requested was unclear and offered no
assistance. Both of the potential drivers drove the car on the road
in question several times each day. After representations to the
Crown Prosecution Service from Mr Williamson that the client used
'reasonable dilligence' to try and ascertain who was driving on the
day in question, the case was formally discontinued before getting
to trial.
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.
View other speeding
cases
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.
back to
top>>
speeding
client has speeding conviction set
aside
"Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences Team was consulted by L
who had been required to attend before the New Forest Magistrates'
Court as the Justices were considering imposing a period of
disqualification from driving. L had been driving a motor
vehicle in the Southampton area which was recorded by a fixed
camera as travelling at 37 mph in a 30 mph speed limit.
Hampshire Constabulary wrote to L at his last known address serving
a notice of intended prosecution and requesting driver
details. The notice and request failed to reach L who had
around this time moved into temporary accommodation. A
chasing letter from Hampshire Constabulary was also not
received. The first L knew about the situation was receipt of
a summons returnable before the New Magistrates' Court alleging an
offence of speeding and an offence in the alternative of failing to
provide driver details. L due to an oversight missed the
initial court hearing. L made contact with the court office
the following day to be informed that the hearing was to be
rescheduled. However, the second hearing date was listed as a
hearing for the court to consider disqualification from driving as
L had been convicted in his absence at the initial hearing of the
offence of failing to provide driver details. That offence
would have attracted six penalty points and in the particular
circumstances of L rendered him liable to a minimum period of
disqualification of six months under the "totting up" provisions.
Barry Culshaw was instructed to attend the sentencing hearing to
represent L's interests. Following extensive legal argument
the Justices were finally persuaded to set aside the conviction on
the grounds of the interests of justice. L proceeded to
tender a guilty plea to the speeding matter and the Crown
Prosecution Service then applied to withdraw the count of failing
to provide driver details. The Justices having heard
mitigation on behalf of L reference the speeding count decided to
fine L and endorse his driving licence with three penalty
points. L was, accordingly, able to retain his driving
licence. Had the initial conviction not have been set aside L
would have been facing a serious risk of disqualification from
driving which would have had a major impact upon his family life
and his business."
client acquitted of alleged speeding offence in
Bedfordshire
J consulted Philip Somarakis with regard to an allegation of
speeding pending before Bedford Magistrates Court. The prosecution
had been brought by Bedfordshire Police. J was alleged to have
contravened a 30 mph speed limit on a restricted road. The alleged
offence had been detected by a fixed speed camera. The request for
driver details issued to J by the police although purporting to be
issued on behalf of the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police did
not specify the name of a sender or the capacity in which the
sender was acting. J pleaded not guilty on the basis that the
request for driver details was unlawful and defective. At trial J
was represented by Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team. J
was acquitted of the alleged speeding offence the District Judge
having ruled that the request for driver details was unlawful in
that there was no evidence before the court that the person who
actually sent the notice out was duly authorised to act in this
capacity on behalf of the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire. An order
for costs was made in J's favour.
motorcycle speeding on Millbrook Road,
Southampton
E consulted the Motoring Offences team with regard to an
allegation of speeding returnable before Southampton Magistrates
Court. The prosecution case had been brought by Hampshire
Constabulary and alleged that E had been riding a motorcycle at a
speed exceeding a 50 mph speed limit on Millbrook Road,
Southampton. Barry Culshaw arranged for the speed limit signing to
be investigated with a view to establishing whether the signing
provided adequate guidance to motorists of the speed limit.
Investigations revealed a series of flaws in the adequacy of the
speed limit signing including the absence of illumination to
terminal signing. Detailed representations were made to the Crown
Prosecution Service with regard to the merits of the case. In
November 2009 the Crown Prosecution Service decided to discontinue
the case on the basis that there was "not enough evidence to
provide a realistic prospect of conviction".
motorist was not disqualified from driving after
speeding allegation
C consulted Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team in
regard to a speeding allegation to which C had pleaded guilty. The
prosecution had been brought by Hampshire Constabulary and the
Lyndhurst Magistrates Court had adjourned the case as consideration
was being given to disqualifying C from driving for a minimum
period of six years. C was advised to persuading the justices to
decline to disqualify on the basis of exceptional hardship. Barry
Culshaw represented C at the hearing when the Lyndhurst justices,
having heard the detailed mitigation, found that exceptional
hardship did arise and accordingly declined to disqualify C from
driving.
no ban for 109mph motor-cyclist
Tim Williamson recently represented a motor-cyclist at
Chichester Magistrates' Court, who had been charged with speeding.
The motor-cyclist was recorded travelling at 109mph on the A272 at
Midhurst, West Sussex, which is subject to a 60mph speed limit. He
had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing and was at risk of being
banned for between seven days and eight weeks. However
the Court was persuaded not to ban him at all and instead the Court
endorsed his licence with six penalty points.
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 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.
back to
top>>
careless driving
carelss driving while
probabtionary driver
S recently instructed the
Motoring Offences team with regard to an allegation of careless
driving. She had pleaded guilty to the allegation by post but the
court required her to attend court in person because it was
considering disqualifying her from driving for the offence. S
was also a probationary driver and if the court had endorsed
her driving licence with six or more penalty points, her
driving licence would have been revoked by DVLA and she would have
had to pass another, more arduous, driving test before being able
to continue driving. She consulted Barry Culshaw initially and was
represented by Tim Williamson at the court hearing. Tim persuaded
the Magistrates not to disqualify her from driving for the offence.
After hearing the mitigating circumstances, the court ordered that
her driving licence be endorsed with four penalty points,
meaning that she was able to continue driving without having to
worry about re-taking her driving test.
careless driving on Barnes Lane, Sarisbury
Green
Barry Culshaw of our Motoring Offences team 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.
back to
top>>
drink driving
drink driver has case dropped on grounds of insufficient
evidence
Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences Team was consulted by S
who had been charged with failing without reasonable excuse to
provide specimens of breath for analysis during the course of an
investigation into whether or not a drink driving offence had been
committed. The proceedings had been initiated by Hampshire
Constabulary and the proceedings were pending before Southampton
Magistrates Court. S maintained that she had used her best
endeavours to provide both specimens of breath but had been unable
to do so. On Barry Culshaw's advice a not guilty plea was entered
and an expert commissioned to prepare a report. The expert's report
when obtained was favourable to S's defence and a copy was lodged
with the court and served on the Crown Prosecution Service.
Investigations revealed that it would appear that S had been
blowing into the Intoximeter device too hard for both specimens to
be accepted by the device. Despite this problem the police officer
conducting the breath test procedure had failed to inform S of the
problem. Pursuant to Barry Culshaw's advice a detailed defence
statement was lodged with the court and a copy served on the Crown.
Representations were also made at length as to the merits of the
defence. A fortnight prior to the trial date the Crown decided to
discontinue the case on the basis that there was "not enough
evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction". S's
decision to tender a not guilty plea was accordingly vindicated and
came as a considerable relief to S who, in the event of conviction,
was facing a minimum period of disqualification from driving of
three years and a hefty financial penalty
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.
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.
back to
top>>
sentencing and mitigation
allegation of failure to identify driver details
(Section 172)
Barry Culshaw of the Motoring
Offences Team was consulted by G who had received a summons before
Southampton Magistrates'
Court alleging a failure to identify driver details pursuant to
Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The prosecution
case had been brought by Hampshire Constabulary. Barry
Culshaw advised G to enter a not guilty plea on the basis that G
had changed address a short time prior to the alleged speeding
incident to which the request for driver details related. G
had not received any of the correspondence from the Central Ticket
Office of Hampshire Constabulary. Barry Culshaw made
representations to the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to the
merits of the case. When G produced evidence to the Crown
Prosecution Service of her change of address at the material time
the Crown decided to discontinue the case on the basis that there was "not enough evidence
to provide a realistic prospect of conviction".
The decision of the Crown
Prosecution Service to discontinue the proceedings was a
vindication of G's decision to proceed with a not guilty
plea., G in the event of conviction faced the prospect of a
fine and endorsement of her driving licence with six penalty points
or imposition of a period of disqualification from driving.
There was the additional risk in the event of conviction of a
minimum period of disqualification from driving of six months
under the totting-up
provisions had the penalty points been endorsed."
allegation of contravening a red traffic
light
Barry Culshaw of the Motoring
Offences Team was consulted by T who faced an allegation of
contravening a red traffic light. The proceedings were brought by
Hampshire Constabulary and dealt with before the Southampton
Magistrates Court. T was adamant that the lights were showing green
when he entered the junction. Two police officers were equally
adamant that he had contravened a red traffic light at the junction
in question. On Barry Culshaw's advice a traffic management and
signing consultant was engaged to visit the junction and to produce
photographic and DVD evidence of the traffic light system. The
inspection of the expert revealed that the police officers could
not have seen from their position the traffic lights regulating T's
entry into the junction and having regard to the statements of the
officers it appeared inescapable that the traffic lights that they
were looking at were the lights on the far side of the junction
which were not the traffic lights regulating the stop line for
vehicles entering the junction. The expert formulated a report
together with DVD evidence and this was lodged with the court and a
copy served on the CPS. Barry Culshaw then made detailed
representations inviting the CPS to review the merits of proceeding
with the case. After due deliberation and a mere two days prior to
the trial date the CPS decided to discontinue the case on the basis
that there was "not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect
of conviction". This was a vindication of T's decision to contest
the proceedings and was also a welcome development for T. At the
time of the alleged offence T was a probationary driver with three
penalty points already endorsed on the driving licence within the
two year probationary period. Had T been convicted of the current
offence his licence would have been revoked by DVLA and he would
then have had to retake a driving test.
airline pilot and part-time
carer spared disqualification
H recently instructed Tim Williamson
of the Motoring Offences team in connection with an offence of
speeding. H did not deny that she was speeding,
but was concerned that she was at risk of being disqualified from
driving for a period of six months because she had already
accumulated nine penalty points on her driving licence. H
worked as an airline pilot and travelled hundreds of miles each day
from her home to the airport where she worked, often at very
unsociable hours. She was concerned at the lack of public transport
available and was very worried that she might lose her job if she
were to lose her licence. She also acted as a carer for her elderly
parents who lived in another part of the country. Tim represented H
at the court hearing and persuaded the court not to disqualify her
from driving at all. The court accepted that a six month driving
disqualification would cause her and others 'exceptional hardship'
and so the client left the court at liberty to carry on driving.
Tim earned the gratitude of the client and even praise from the
District Judge who heard the case.
reduced period of
disqualification for speeding, Southampton
For the purposes of Section 35 Road
Traffic Offenders Act 1988, a Court when considering a totting up
disqualification, can take into account a driver training course as
a mitigating circumstance. Southampton Crown Court so held in the
case of R v Tew 12 March 2010. Barry Culshaw of this firm
represented Mr Tew who had accumulated 12 points on his
licence, but due to a previous driving disqualification, now faced
a minimum 12-month ban. Barry appeared before His Honour Judge
Leigh QC and two lay justices and successfully argued that the
Court could take into account driver training. The Court
decided to impose a three month driving disqualification with
the result that Mr Tew will now serve a much
reduced period and also have his slate wiped
clean.
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.
View more information about sentencing and
mitigation
back to
top>>
other motoring offences
allegedly driving while using
a mobile phone
Mr H instructed Tim Williamson of the
Motoring Offences team, in connection with an allegation of driving
whilst using a hand held mobile telephone. Two officers had stopped
him in the centre of Southampton and sought to issue him with a
fixed penalty because they claimed they saw him talking on his
mobile telephone whilst he was driving. Mr H denied this and
declined to accept the fixed penalty. Mr Williamson and Mr H spent
much of the following 13 months trying to obtain crucial records
from his mobile phone provider which showed data covering his
incoming as well as outgoing calls. The case reached Southampton
Magistrates Court last Thursday 27th May where Mr H was acquitted.
The court accepted the defence case that both officers were
mistaken and that the mobile phone records supported the client's
account. The court then ordered that Mr H's costs be paid from
central funds. Needless to say the client was delighted with the
outcome.
driving without
insurance
C consulted Barry Culshaw of the Motoring
Offences Team with regard to an allegation of using a motor vehicle
without insurance. The matter was pending before Southampton
Magistrates Court and the prosecution had been instituted by
Hampshire Constabulary. The prosecution's case was based upon
a police check of C's vehicle when he was driving laden with items
of scrap. The Crown alleged that the vehicle was not being
used at the material time for purposes of the motor trade and,
accordingly, C was uninsured on his motor trader's policy. C
maintained that in arranging the third party insurance cover he had
relied on the advice of a broker and was acting in good faith
throughout. Barry Culshaw obtained a witness statement from
the broker and served a copy on the Crown. The thrust of the
defence was that the nature of the load was arguably within the
terms of the motor trader's policy and even if it was not
representations were made on behalf of C that it was not in the
public interest to continue the prosecution against him. On
the day before the scheduled trial the Crown Prosecution Service
decided to discontinue the case on the basis that "a prosecution
(was) not needed in the public interest." C had earlier on
Barry Culshaw's advice declined to accept a fixed penalty in the
sum of £200 and endorsement of C's driving licence with six penalty
points arising out of this no insurance allegation. The
discontinuance of the proceedings vindicated C's decision to reject
the fixed penalty and to elect court proceedings.
accusation of driving whilst
using a mobile phone, Southampton
S consulted Barry Culshaw of the
Motoring Offences team with regard to a prosecution brought by
Hampshire Constabulary. S was alleged to have been driving a
motor vehicle on a road in the Southampton area whilst using a
handheld mobile telephone. S maintained that he was not using
a mobile telephone in anyway whatsoever at the material time.
Barry Culshaw arranged for the mobile telephone to be analysed by
an expert and also commissed a report from the data records of the
contract phone provider. Two witnesses present at the time of
the incident were also interviewed in readiness for their giving
evidence at the trial which was listed before Southampton
Magistrates Court. Barry Culshaw arranged to serve the expert
evidence and data records on the Crown Prosecution Service.
On the afternoon prior to the trial the Crown Prosecution Service
decided to discontinue the case on the basis that there was "not
enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction".
failing to provide specimens,
Southampton
B was charged by Hampshire Constabulary with one count of
failing to provide specimens of breath for analysis when requested
to do so in connection with a drink driving incident. B
consulted Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences Team who
investigated the status of the land on which B was arrested.
Evidence was collated and served on the Crown Prosecution Service
to illustrate that both the drink driving incident and the
subsequent arrest occured on private land and that the road in
question was, accordingly, not a road subject to the provisions of
the Road Traffic Act 1988. Case law has established that it
is not an automatic defence to a fail to provide count (as opposed
to a drink driving count) that the drink driving incident occured
on private land. However, Barry Culshaw made detailed written
representations to the Crown Prosecution Service which raised the
issue as to whether the police were acting in good faith given the
extensive signing of the private nature of the land in
question. The case was pending for trial before Southampton
Magistrates Court but following the representations the Crown
decided to discontinue the case on the basis that there was "not
enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of
conviction". Had B been convicted of the offence he would
have faced a minimum period of disqualification from driving of 12
months. The Southampton Justices also granted an order for
costs in favour of B.
failing to stop at a red light
Mr B instructed Tim Williamson in regard to an allegation
of failing to comply with a red traffic light in Portsmouth, which
was brought by Hampshire Police. Mr B denied driving through a red
traffic light as alleged by the two police officers. Upon careful
examination of the officer's witness statements, it transpired that
both officers stated that the traffic lights remained at red for 30
seconds after Mr B had allegedly driven through the red signal. Tim
Williamson obtained witness statements from independent witnesses
and the local traffic management office which demonstrated that the
officers must have been mistaken, because the entire trafic light
sequence lasted for only 18 seconds. This evidence was presented to
the Crown Prosecution Service, who formally dropped the case prior
to the start of the trial. Mr B kept his driving licence and was
awarded his costs.
allegation of misuse of mobile phones whilst
driving
S consulted Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences team with
regard to an allegation of misuse of a mobile phone while
driving. The prosecution had been brought by Hampshire
Constabulary. S denied that he had been using a mobile phone at the
material time and challenged the evidence of two police officers to
the contrary. Prior to trial, the mobile service provider was
contacted and produced evidence which supported S' case. At the
trial of the matter at New Forest Magistrates Court, S was found
not guilty and the allegation dismissed.
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.
back to
top>>