Speeding offences in the UK range from minor to major offences.
To know more about the speeding law in the UK, speak to one of our
specialist solicitors today.
Speed offences in the UK are captured by speed cameras,
laser guns and unmarked police cars and a single conviction for a
speeding offence can lose you your licence. To know more about
the speeding law in the UK, speak to one of our specialist
solicitors today. On the face of it, the evidence against you may
seem compelling and that the obvious choice is to plead
guilty. That is not always right. In what might seem to be
watertight cases, our speeding law solicitors have made successful
challenges and seen clients acquitted of a speeding offence for a
variety of reasons.
speeding penalties
Speeding offences penalties are a maximum fine of £2,500
(otherwise it is £1,000) for an offence on the motorway; three
- six penalty points or a driving disqualification.
speeding offences articles
- supporting opinion evidence in speeding
offences
Our Motoring Offences team examines recent case law clarifying
that, in the case of a temporary speed restriction, the prosecuting
agency can elect as to whether to prosecute for breaching that
restriction or a speed limit.
- speeding towards accountability
In light of recent Government proposals, our Motoring Offences team
considers the gap between the perception of what speed cameras are
for (and what they actually do) and the reality of the
situation.
View further speeding offences news and
updates.
speeding case studies
client acquited due to notice to prosecute being served outside
of statutory period
Barry Culshaw of the Blake Lapthorn Motoring
Offences team was consulted by W who was facing an allegation
of speeding. The prosecution was brought by Avon &
Somerset Constabulary and was pending for hearing before the
Taunton Magistrates' Court. W was alleged to have exceeded a
30 mph speed limit on the A358 Henlead, Somerset by travelling at
44 mph. W disputed the accuracy of the speed check, but
pursuant to Barry Culshaw's advice detailed representations were
made to the court office and the prosecuting agency highlighting
the fact that the notice of intended prosecution had been served
one day outside the 14 day statutory period and, accordingly, the
statutory prohibition on conviction applied. Having considered
the representations, the
prosecuting agency arranged to withdraw the proceedings.
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 109 mph 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 109 mph on the A272 at
Midhurst, West Sussex, which is subject to a 60 mph 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.
court persuade to take leniet view of 128 miles per hour
speeder in Thames Valley
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.
