Motoring offences - case studies

Case studies

R v T - our solicitors acted for “T” in relation to an allegation of speeding. T had been accused of exceeding the speed limit, however at the time her friend in the car was suffering a hypoglycaemic attack. T had therefore exceeded the speed limit to enable them to get home and obtain the necessary insulin. A ‘special reasons’ plea was put forward which was accepted by the Court, no penalty points were imposed for the offence.

R v L - our motoring offence experts acted for “L” in relation to a charge of driving with excess alcohol. L had been involved in an accident at the time of the alleged offence and was subsequently taken to hospital. The prosecution then obtained a blood sample which was split into two and one of these specimens given to L. When L sent this to an expert to be analysed he was informed that there was insufficient blood in the specimen to perform any analysis. It was argued at Court that as the defendant’s specimen had been of insufficient quantity to be analysed, the prosecution specimen should not be admissible as evidence. The Court heard evidence from the expert who had attempted to analyse the specimen and found the defendant not guilty.

R v B - our specialist solicitors acted for “B” in relation to an appeal against sentence for disqualified driving. The client had originally been represented by another firm and disqualified under the ‘totting up’ provisions. He had appealed this decision and believed that his ban had been automatically lifted as a result. However a separate application must be made to lift the disqualification, pending the outcome of the appeal and this had not been done. Subsequently he was charged with disqualified driving which he dealt with on his own and was sentenced to 100 hours community service and a further 12 months disqualification. Stephensons acted for B on appeal, the Crown Court reduced the sentence to six penalty points and counted the community work done to date as sufficient.

DVLA v S - our driving offence solicitors acted for “S” in relation to a DVLA prosecution for failing to insure a vehicle as a registered keeper. S had sold the vehicle some months prior and sent the necessary form to the DVLA to inform them of this, however this was never received. Written representations were made to the Court showing that the vehicle was no longer in his possession, the case was then discontinued against S without him having to attend Court.

R v S - our solicitors acted for “S” in relation to a charge of drink driving. S was successful at trial when the prosecution were unable to prove that the specimen of urine was in fact the defendants. Under cross examination, the police could not say who had transported the specimen and subsequently labelled it with the defendant’s details. The Court therefore found S not guilty as there was insufficient evidence to prove who the specimen had been obtained from.

R v M - our solicitors acted for “M” in relation to two charges of driving whilst unfit through drugs. In the first case the prosecution attended Court and offered no evidence at trial after the defence submitted there was no evidence of impairment. M was subsequently found not guilty. In the second matter the validity of the impairment test carried out by the police was called into question. The Court held that the prosecution had not proven that the impairment suffered by M was as a result of his consumption of cannabis and he was therefore found not guilty of the second charge.

DVLA v F - our motoring offence solicitors acted for “F” in relation to a DVLA decision to revoke her driving licence on medical grounds. F was a foreign national whose first language was not English. Shortly after the birth of her twin children she fell asleep at the wheel due to exhaustion. When queried about this she stated that she had ‘passed out’ and the DVLA revoked her licence due to an unexplained loss of consciousness. It was successfully argued that the loss of consciousness was simply due to tiredness and there was no medical evidence to suggest that this was a medical condition. The DVLA subsequently reversed their decision and reinstated F’s driving licence.

C v Chief Officer of Launceston Police - solicitors from Stephensons acted for C in relation to an application for the early removal of his disqualification from driving. It was submitted to the Court that C had recently had another child and was responsible for running his own business, which was the sole source of income for the family. In light of this the pressures upon his time had become unmanageable without access to his driving licence. The Court accepted this and removed the disqualification, pending the successful completion of a medical with the DVLA as required in the original case.