emma's blog
We had a really good week last week.
There are some stories to update in relation to earlier entries on the blog.
You will remember my blog of the 19 October (below) entitled 'Beating the CPS at their own game!' regarding a complicated case where our client was prosecuted for no insurance and no licence because unbeknown to him, his licence had been revoked on a previous occasion for a speeding matter. He had been convicted in his absence with no knowledge of the original speeding matter and the Court and the DVLA had revoked his licence as a result of him not surrendering it for the points to be imposed. All the correspondence in relation to that matter had been sent to the wrong address.
We made a statutory declaration, setting aside the original conviction for the speeding matter and then argued that, because the conviction was set aside, all Orders that flowed from it were void. This included the revocation. Voiding the revocation meant that the CPS could no longer argue that our client was driving without insurance or not in accordance with the licence .... get it!
The only problem that we had was that a statutory declaration only sets aside any Orders from the date that the declaration was made. This meant that at the time our client was stopped by the police (for the no insurance and no driving licence matter) his licence was still revoked.
We received a letter last week, after a long battle with the CPS, stating that it was not in the public interest to pursue this matter further. We had obtained a letter from the insurance company, as a back up plan, indicating that despite the circumstances they would have honoured our client's insurance.
The CPS seemed to be unable to grasp the argument that we were trying to make. They kept writing to us asking for our intentions in relation to the no insurance and no driving licence matter and we kept indicating that our client was pleading not guilty??
After a long battle of correspondence between the CPS, the Court and ourselves, the CPS eventually saw sense and withdrew the allegations of no insurance and no driving licence on Thursday. Ria is in the process of applying for a Defendant's Costs Order in order to try and reclaim our client's reasonable legal expenses in this matter. This was a good result!!
We have also had a very important victory in relation to a speeding allegation where we were defending it on the basis that there were no proper signs in place in order to enforce the speed limit.
This was an interesting case because the speed limit restrictions were temporary and related to works being carried out by Network Rail.
We worked hard with our client, who we must say did a huge amount of work initially in order to put his own mind at rest that he had not committed an offence.
Our client had even gone back to the scene shortly after being flashed and had taken photographs of the signs (or lack of). Some of which were face down flat on the ground and others were covered by sacking. He also had a witness who managed to stop in a vehicle in front of him when the speed camera 'flashed'. He asked the witness at the time whether or not he was aware that there was a speed limit in place and both of them agreed that there was an appalling lack of signs.
When our client came to us, we reviewed his work to date and agreed with his conclusion that the speed limit was unenforceable due to the lack of signs.
Louise then made detailed representations to the Crown Prosecution Service on his behalf and also asked them to provide statements from the maintenance workers at Network Rail, who had taken responsibility for putting the signs up in the first place.
Unfortunately (shame), the Crown Prosecution Service and Network Rail were not able to obtain a statement from those responsible for putting up the signage (we have no idea why they were unable to do this) and this meant that the Crown Prosecution Service didn't have a reasonable prospect of obtaining a successful conviction.
Again, they withdrew the proceedings in relation to this matter on Wednesday. Another important victory and a good illustration of the way in which we work closely with our clients in order to provide a cost effective service that adds 'weight and clout' to the representations that they have already tried to make themselves. Again, we will be applying for a Defendant's Costs Order in relation to this matter.
Jemma Hurrell, team leader, has been dealing with a case for a Chauffeur who had been summonsed for speeding (108mph on a motorway) and driving without insurance. She has obtained an amazing result for her client, read on.......
At the time of the incident, our client was driving his employee's wife to the bedside of her dying father. The wife had received a call from a family member to indicate that her father did not have much longer to live and that she needed to make the journey quickly to have a last opportunity to see him
This was obviously an emotive case and very traumatic for all those involved especially family.
The wife was deeply upset by the fact that our client had got into trouble in order to help her get to the bedside of her father. She had encouraged our client to drive as quickly as possible and he had felt under pressure to break the speed limit albeit he wanted to do his utmost to help her in her moment of need.
Being a chauffeur it was of crucial importance to our client that he did not lose his licence. He was at risk of a significant discretionary ban due to the speed involved and the offence was significantly aggravated by the fact that he had been driving uninsured.
Our client was stopped because of the speed. On being stopped, it transpired that he was not insured to drive the vehicle. He was driving in the course of his employment and it was his employer's fault. This was unbeknown to our client who believed that he was fully road legal.
After taking the case, we made detailed representations to the Crown Prosecution Service. We argued that there were special reasons in relation to the allegation of speeding and that there was no criminality on our client’s part. We tried to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that there was no public interest in taking the matter further. We also made representations that our client had a defence to the allegation of driving without insurance on the basis that he was driving in the course of his employment and genuinely believed that he was insured at the time. We tried to persaude the crown that they did not have a reasonable prospect of obtaining a successful conviction in relation to that matter.
We have just received a letter confirming that the Crown Prosecution Service are going to take no further action in relation to both allegations and that they have agreed that it is not in the public interest to take the matter further!!
This is obviously a very good outcome and we were relieved on behalf of our client that he no longer faces the risk of losing his licence and therefore being unable to carry on working as a Chauffeur.
The CPS do do the right thing when the circumstances are compelling.
|
Monday morning and I am sat here answering questions that have been sent in to Roadside Lawyer over the course of the weekend. I have answered quite a few questions this morning and given quite pessimistic advice about the possibility of challenging the evidence. Of course that is not always the advice that I give and sometimes I am very optimistic about the prospects of defending a matter. I have spent some time on other internet sites that purport to give advice in relation to road traffic offences. I often see very "gung ho" advice suggesting that people should defend their case and suggesting that the Prosecution will just roll over when challenged. This is simply not the case. Having spent 8 years in the Court Service and 10 years working in Private Practice I know from experience that once Court Proceedings have been issued the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are very reluctant to withdraw the proceedings unless you can put forward a compelling argument or defence. I am a Solicitor and the Solicitor's Conduct Rules state that I must always give clients or prospective clients the best advice possible!
This means that I will always tell clients of the Roadside Lawyer the truth regarding their prospects of defending any allegation against them. If after receiving my advice, the client comes back to me and asks me to act on their behalf I will fight robustly to defend their corner and hopefully get the proceedings withdrawn without the need for a trial. I just wanted to point out that when you ask a question of the Roadside Lawyer and either myself or one of my colleagues answers it you will always get the best possible advice - even if that means telling you something you don't necessarily want to hear. That in no way undermines the effort we will put into defending your case if you decide that you want to go for it. I could advise each and every one of you that comes to me asking for advice to defend the allegation but that would not necessarily be in your best interest as if at the end of the process you may end up with more penalty points, a whacking great fine and hefty Court costs for your trouble.
Your relationship with the Roadside Lawyer has to be built on trust.
You have to trust that we will give you the best advice possible when you ask a question and not that we will encourage you to defend cases simply so that we can charge you a fee to help you. |
We have just received a call from our Barrister at Court to confirm that we have successfully defended a mobile phone allegation. Our client always denied use and we invited the CPS to withdraw the allegation. They refused.
The Court have just heard the prosecution evidence (as I type) and whilst the officer made reference to our client holding the phone to his ear he gave no specific evidence to suggest that the phone was actually being used at the time.
Our Barrister made an application to the Court that there was no case to answer - because the CPS had failed to establish a prima facie case ....... The Magistrates agreed ...!!
Client didn't even have to stand up and defend himself. Happy client.
