Road Traffic Offence Cases

R .v. F
Watford Magistrates Court

Mr. F appeared at Court as he faced disqualification under the ‘totting up’ provisions having acquired 12 penalty points within 3 years. These points were all imposed for speeding offences.

David Claydon made an application that in the event of a disqualification from driving, people in his work and family life would suffer ‘exceptional hardship’. The Magistrates accepted this submission and allowed Mr. F to continue to drive imposing the minimum amount of penalty points in the circumstances, a fine and required victim surcharge.

---

---

R .v. P
Watford Magistrates Court

Mr. P, a driving instructor was charged with drink driving whilst giving a lesson. Mr. P failed a roadside and evidential breath test at the police station.

The matter was denied and expert reports were sought and served on the CPS. Having considered representations made on Mr. P’s behalf the case was discontinued by the CPS. Mr. P received his costs from the Court.

---

---

R .v. R
Watford Magistrates Court

Mr. R was charged with drink driving having failed a breath test at the police station. Mr. R was arrested at his home after police attended following reports of a minor road accident.

Mr. R asserted that he had drunk alcohol after his return home and provided details (as did his wife) to the police, who it was ascertained later, failed to properly investigate.

Following submissions made to the CPS the case was discontinued and Mr. R retained his good character and recovered a large proportion of his costs.

---

---

R .v. Young
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was involved in a road incident, being the driver of a large tipper trunk, and to which a vehicle came into collision. It was alleged that the defendant was at fault. The alleged charges were laid in March 2013:

S.3 Driving Without Due Care and Attention
S.170(4) Failing to Stop / Report a Road Accident
S.170 (4) Failing to Give Name and Address
S.172(3) Failing to Give Information – Drivers Identity

Penman Sedgwick insisted that the Crown provide full disclosure, and made various applications to the Court in this respect, to which finally the Crown disclosed material, and the case went to trial.

On conclusion of the Defence case put, we made submissions in the closing speech, which were accepted by the Court.

Result

Not Guilty – S.3 Driving Without Due Care and Attention
Not Guilty – S.170(4) Failing to Stop / Report a Road Accident
Not Guilty – S.170 (4) Failing to Give Name and Address
Guilty – S.172(3) Failing to Give Information – Drivers Identity

Court Granted Defence Costs in Respect of 3 Not Guilty Verdicts

---

---

Regina .v. Haigh
Oxford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with exceeding the speed limit of 30mph, being the recorded speed of 35mph, contrary to section 81(1) and 89(1) Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984. The speed was captured by a roadside camera.

The Defendant had 9 points on the licence, and faced a disqualification on conviction.

A Guilty plea was entered, and an exceptional hardship argument submitted to the Court. This was accepted.

Sentence

Fine: £1000.00
Victim Surcharge: £20.00
Prosecution Costs: £20.00

---

---

Regina .v. Evans
St. Albans Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a mother of two young children, was charged under two offences:

• Section 5(1)(A) Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, having 156mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, and so exceeded prescribed limit (36 mg).
• Found to be drunk in a public place while having the charge of a child under the age of 7 years, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Licensing Act 1988.

The Defendant

Pleaded Guilty to both offences.

Facts

In course of drink, drove on the wrong side of a road, and collided head on with a truck. Both children were in the vehicle, the oldest aged 7 years in the front seat, the youngest aged 1 year in the rear seat, with child seating.

Sentence

We made submissions of case law, and explained such law to the Magistrates, with mitigation on behalf of the Defendant.

The Magistrates retired for a period of time.

In respect of Section 5(1)(A):

• 12 weeks custody suspended for a period of 18 months.
• 12 month Community Order, with a Supervision requirement.
• Drink Drive Impaired Drivers Programme.
• Unpaid work requirement of 100 hours.
• A reduction from the 38 month disqualification from driving by 38 weeks.

In respect of Section 2(1) Licensing Act 1902:

• 3 weeks custody concurrent suspended for 18 months.

Note

The breath limit level of seriousness on the Magistrates Court guidelines is up to 150 and above, providing for 12 weeks custody with a range to 26 weeks custody, and a disqualification to 36 months, at the Magistrates discretion.

Section 2(1) provides up to 1 month custody.

---

---

Regina .v. Emery
St. Albans Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with two offences:

• Drove a vehicle on a road, after having consumed so much alcohol that the proportion of it in the breath, being 102 Microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of Breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Failed to stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform, contrary to section 163(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The Facts

The Defendant consumed a very large quantity of Guinness (10 plus pints), left the Public House, and proceeded to his vehicle, then drove erratically without lights on the vehicle at very late evening, across junctions, narrowly missed parked vehicles, and in pursuit by marked blue light police vehicles, who eventually boxed the defendant in, who refused to exit the vehicle when requested to do so by police.

The Defendant was forcibly ejected by police, arrested and charged. The Defendant was so heavily intoxicated that he knew not what he was doing, nor remembered events the next day. This was a serious matter.

Sentence

Penman Sedgwick were instructed and made submissions in mitigation.

• Disqualification – 25 months, with a drink drivers awareness course that would reduce the period of disqualification by 25 weeks, to 30 August 2015.
• Community Service Order – 12 months to undertake 100 hours of unpaid work.
• Prosecution costs – £85.00
• Victim Surcharge –£60.00

There was no separate penalty for failing to stop.

The Law

For the level of alcohol between 90 – 119, a starting point of a medium level community order to a high level community order, and a disqualification of between 23 – 28 months.

---

---

DVLA .v. Kemp
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summoned by virtue of being a person in whose name a vehicle, was registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 when it did not meet the insurance requirements of Section 144A OF THE Road traffic Act 1988, Contrary to Section 144A of the Road Traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Facts

The defendant wrote to the DVLA, explaining that the nature of the matter before the Court, in several correspondences explaining concisely the DVLA mistaken view point, together with supporting documentation, yet the matter proceeded to Court.

Hearing

Penman Sedgwick attended on instructions at Court, the Prosecution failed to attend, and we submitted concerns as to the prosecution matter. As a result, the prosecution was withdrawn, an Application was made as to defence costs, and awarded by the Court.

The Law

The maximum penalty on conviction is £1000.00, being level 3 on the standard scale. It is also normal for the prosecutor to ask for a minimum contribution of £110.00 towards legal costs.

---

---

Regina .v. Garcia
Hendon Magistrates Court
Willesden Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a road after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in the breath was 66 mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to Section 5(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Facts

The Defendant whilst drinking in a bar, believed that his drinks were spiked with alcohol without his knowledge.

Investigation

It was found that an admission had been made to police by a third party at the scene of arrest of the Defendant, but ignored.

Trial

A plea of Guilty as a strict liability offence, but substantial mitigation and legal argument by case law put to the Justices, by a Special Reasons submission.

Sentence

That there be no disqualification, a fine of £500.00 with Costs of £600.00, a victim surcharge of £50.00.

Appeal

The fine was inconsistent with the findings, or any punitive Order, and magistrates served with a Notice of Case Stated to the High Court. The Magistrates clerk decided thereupon to revisit the sentence before the Magistrates Court at a further date.

Result

The fine of £500.00 dismissed.

---

---

Regina .v. Garcia
Hendon Magistrates Court
Willesden Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a road after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in the breath was 66 mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to Section 5(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Facts

The Defendant whilst drinking in a bar, believed that his drinks were spiked with alcohol without his knowledge.

Investigation

It was found that an admission had been made to police by a third party at the scene of arrest of the Defendant, but ignored.

Trial

A plea of Guilty as a strict liability offence, but substantial mitigation and legal argument by case law put to the Justices, by a Special Reasons submission.

Sentence

That there be no disqualification, a fine of £500.00 with Costs of £600.00, a victim surcharge of £50.00.

Appeal

The fine was inconsistent with the findings, or any punitive Order, and magistrates served with a Notice of Case Stated to the High Court. The Magistrates clerk decided thereupon to revisit the sentence before the Magistrates Court at a further date.

Result

The fine of £500.00 dismissed.

---

---

R .v. Bullimore
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant fell asleep at the wheel whilst driving along a road, at night, and collided with a parked vehicle causing that vehicle to cause damage to the vehicle directly parked in front, causing extensive damage to both vehicles.

The Defendant drove off, but the very next day made enquiries as to the owner of the vehicles and exchanged details, and voluntarily attended a police station provide details and admitted liability prior to any police investigation.

The Defendant was charged as follows:

• Being the driver of a vehicle, owing to the presence of which on a road, an accident occurred whereby damage was caused to another vehicle, failed to stop and on being required by a person having reasonable grounds for so requiring failed to give the name and address and the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle contrary to Section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Drove a vehicle without due care and attention contrary to Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Penman Sedgwick made submissions in Court, and as a result the Section 170(4) was withdrawn by the Crown.

A plea of guilty was then entered to Section 3.

We then made submissions as to circumstances and the Sentencing Guidelines, which were accepted by the Court.

Sentence

Fine: £500.00
Prosecution costs: £85.00
Victim Surcharge: £50.00 5 Penalty Points

---

---

Regna .v. Wick
Hertford Magistrates Court

The Charge

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide a specimen of blood for a laboratory test, whilst having been admitted as an emergency patient by 999 Ambulance, pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether an offence had been committed under section 3A, 4 or 5 of the Act, and failed without reasonable excuse to do so, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the road Traffic Offences Act 1988.

Facts

The Defendant, whilst at the police station, suffered a suspected heart attack, in the course of prior provision of a blood sample, and was admitted to Hospital.

In the course of treatment in the accident and emergency unit, samples of blood were taken, but alleged not be in respect of blood specimens for the purpose of section 7 of the Act. The Defendant provided no further samples of blood, believing that the sample required was within the samples taken..

A detailed defence statement was drafted and served upon the Crown Prosecution Service and further representations on charge. Eventually, the CPS provided a Notice of Discontinuance, and an Application for Costs was awarded in respect of a lengthy defence case to be met from Central Funds.

---

---

Regna .v. Wick
Hertford Magistrates Court

The Charge

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide a specimen of blood for a laboratory test, whilst having been admitted as an emergency patient by 999 Ambulance, pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether an offence had been committed under section 3A, 4 or 5 of the Act, and failed without reasonable excuse to do so, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the road Traffic Offences Act 1988.

Facts

The Defendant, whilst at the police station, suffered a suspected heart attack, in the course of prior provision of a blood sample, and was admitted to Hospital.

In the course of treatment in the accident and emergency unit, samples of blood were taken, but alleged not be in respect of blood specimens for the purpose of section 7 of the Act. The Defendant provided no further samples of blood, believing that the sample required was within the samples taken..

A detailed defence statement was drafted and served upon the Crown Prosecution Service and further representations on charge. Eventually, the CPS provided a Notice of Discontinuance, and an Application for Costs was awarded in respect of a lengthy defence case to be met from Central Funds.

---

---

R .v. Reynolds
St. Albans Magistrates Court

The Defendant drove a motor vehicle in the course of a disqualification and without insurance, contrary to:

• Section 103 Road Traffic Act 1988
• Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988

Pleas of Guilty were entered to both charges.

The Defendant had previously been charged with three offences of driving with excess alcohol contrary to section 5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 , which resulted in disqualification periods for each offence, and to which the last conviction related.

The Law

As the current offence was within a recently imposed ban, the starting point being 12 weeks custody, with a range of High Level community order (150-300 hours) to 26 weeks custody ;a curfew order and further disqualification for 12 – 18 months beyond expiry of the current ban.

Penman Sedgwick made submissions on behalf of the Defendant

Sentence

Driving whilst disqualified:

• A 12 month community order for 200 hours unpaid work.
• Extended disqualification period of 6 months.
• Fine of £200; Prosecution costs £85.00; Victim surcharge £60.
• Driving without insurance:
• Licence endorsed (No penalty points).

---

---

R .v. Mann
Waltham Forest Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a road, otherwise in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class, contrary to section 87(10 of the Road Traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Further, the Police seized the vehicle, and was subject to a release charge from a police compound.

Facts

The defendant was stopped whilst in the course of driving by a police vehicle, instructed to exit the vehicle, and read at a distance. The defendant passed the road sight vision test. A report was made by police as the licence carried the restriction.

The defendant did not suffer from defective eyesight, and evidence was submitted that on an eyesight test by a qualified optician two days post the event, no prescription was required whatsoever. Further, DVLA had made errors on the licence by way of a disqualification.

Penman Sedgwick made submissions and the prosecution then withdrew the case before the Magistrates, which was accepted, Case Dismissed, and a costs application for defence costs made.

The Court Clerk, advised the Magistrates that it was not normal for a costs application to be granted in such matters, which was firmly rebutted by Penman Sedgwick, and the Magistrates awarded defence costs to be taxed from Central funds.

The Law

This is a summary offence, level 3 fine on the standard scale, a discretionary disqualification where the offenders driving would not have been in accordance with a licence that could have been granted. An obligatory endorsement, between 3-6 penalty points.

---

---

Regina .v. Hecht
Willesden Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with the following two offences:

• Driving a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, Contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, by way of failing to comply with traffic signs.

Facts of the case

The Defendant drove towards a no entry street, clearly indicated by two prominent no entry signs at the commencement of the road, and then proceeded along another one way road in the wrong direction.

In the course of driving, a pedestrian was hit, at a speed of 20 mph, by the near side of the vehicle, and to which an ambulance and police were called. Injuries were allegedly suffered. Eventually the defendant returned to the scene after a chase by a witness.

Plea

Guilty to both charges

The Law

• (1) Section 3 RTA 1988 Between 3 – 9 Penalty points, a discretionary disqualification, and a Band B fine of between 75% – 125% of relevant income. A Factor indicating greater degree of harm for sentence was the injury to the pedestrian.
• (2) Section 36 RTA 1988 To be considered within the first charge.

Penman Sedgwick presented submissions in mitigation to the Magistrates, which were accepted.

Sentence

• 6 Penalty Points
• £300.00 Fine
• £85.00 Prosecution Costs
• £15.00 Victim Surcharge

---

---

Regina .v. Owen
Brent Magistrates Court

Facts

The Defendant was arrested for drink driving, the reading being 77 microgram’s of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, and released by police while still in effect of being drunk, and the police provided him with the car keys. The Defendant then entered his vehicle, and whilst driving was stopped by police, and re – arrested.

The Defendant pleaded Guilty.

Penman Sedgwick made submissions concerning the second arrest and being released while in a state of drink, with car keys, and that the sentence be in line with a discount and singular offence, which was rejected. We informed the Court that the sentence would be subject to an Appeal, being wrong in law.

Charge

Section 5 (1) (Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Sentence

• 36 month Disqualification
• Fine: £550.00

Appeal before the Harrow Crown Court, Mr. Recorder Clark and 2 lay Magistrates, 23rd September 2011

Appeal Against Sentence

The Court allowed the appeal, reducing the period of disqualification to 18 months and granting the drink driver`s rehabilitation course, which will have the effect of reducing the disqualification by one quarter on completion. An Order for defence costs was granted.

---

---

R .v. Walker
Watford Magistrates Court

The defendant was charged that he drove a motor vehicle on the M25 without due care and attention in medium volume traffic with good weather conditions and clear visibility and failed to maintain good lane discipline whilst travelling in lane two, the outside lane, of the motorway and veered towards the central reservation.

As a result collided with the angles section of the barrier at SIGNIFICANT SPEED, causing the vehicle driven to overturn before coming to rest in lane one and two of the motorway contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic offenders Act 1988.

Penman Sedgwick, after being served the initial disclosure by the Crown, served a particularised Defence statement on the Crown; and, on the basis of a late and minimal disclosure in response, legal representations were made to the Crown.

As a result, the Crown withdrew the prosecution by offering no evidence. We made a successful application for Defence costs, granted by the District Judge.

---

---

R .v. Marks
Hertford Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a licenced Taxi Driver under the metropolitan Public carriage Act 1869, as amended by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, was charged with the following 5 offences:

• Failure to give information on drivers identity as required contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Speeding: exceeding 30 miles per hour on a restricted road, (recorded speed 37 m.p.h) Contrary to section 81(1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Failure to give information on drivers identity as required Contrary to section 172(3) of the Road Traffic act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic offenders Act 1988.
• Speeding: exceeding 30 miles per hour on a restricted road, (recorded speed 37 m.p.h) Contrary to section 81(1) and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Speeding: exceeding 30 miles per hour on a restricted road, (recorded speed 39 m.p.h) Contrary to section 8191 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders act 1988.

Result

On submissions to the Court, the two section 172 charges were withdrawn. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining 3 charges of speeding.

The Defendant prior to the hearing had 6 points on the licence.

The Court then sentenced that 3 points for each speeding offence be provided, being a total of 9 points.

Exceptional Hardship Argument

The result was that although the Defendant had 15 points on the licence, the argument was successful, and was not disqualified as a totter.

The Defendant was ordered to pay a total of £490 (£135 for each speeding offence), £15 victim surcharge, and £370 costs.

---

---

R .v. Hemmings
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged by way of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in the blood was registered at 180 milligram’s of Alcohol in 100 Millilitres of Blood so exceeding the prescribed limit, Contrary to Section 5(1)(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The facts succinctly were that the Defendant was arrested after having been provided with a breathalyser test that proved positive, and thereafter arrested and conveyed to a police station. (The Defendant admitted having consumed alcohol after having driven, on returning home).

The police insisted on a blood test being taken, and called a police doctor to administer the taking of the sample. The Defendant (a female) strongly objected to a blood sample, having a phobia of needles. However, the blood sample was taken despite protests. It transpired that the blood tests were not sent for analysis until some five weeks later

The Defendant was later charged.

Penman Sedgwick, conferred with an expert specialist Doctor in the analysis of blood samples, and put the Crown Prosecution Analyst of the blood sample to proof, and required the attendance of that expert to provide evidence in Trial, against the Expert evidence of the defence. At a pre- trial conference it was agreed that the defence case, supported the absence of reflux affecting the road side test; the figures of the blood test supported the claim that the defendant drunk alcohol after the alleged incident, as agreed between the experts, and so the Crown offered no evidence, the Magistrates formally dismissed the charge, and the application for costs was granted.

The Law

Starting point Band C fine, 17-22 months disqualification.

---

---

R .v. Jun Ji
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a Chinese National, employed in the United Kingdom in accordance with an employer sponsorship by way of UK Border Agency Tier 2 version 04/12 Policy Guidance, was charged with exceeding a speed of 50 mph in contravention of a temporary maximum speed restriction, being at a recorded speed of 61 mph, Contrary to Article 4 Statutory Instrument 2010 number 1030 and article 4 Statutory Instrument 2010 number 1432, section 16(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The Defendant entered a plea of Guilty at the first opportunity. Having already 9 penalty points on the licence, a disqualification would automatically follow.

Penman Sedgwick made submissions to the Court based on the Tier 2 applicable paragraphs, that on the basis of the Defendant losing employment due to not having the enjoyment of a drivers licence which would seriously impede the terms of employment, then dismissal would follow, and as a result the Sponsor Employer would be obliged to inform the Border Agency, and the Defendant would be obliged to return to China.

Submissions were accepted by the Court, and the resultant sentence was:

Prosecution costs: £85.00
Victim surcharge : £15.00
Fine: £125.00
3 Penalty Points, providing 12 penalty points in total to the current licence.

---

---

R .v. Chandarana
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with driving a vehicle on the M25 without due care and attention contrary to Section 3 of the Road Traffic act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The facts as alleged were that the defendant, in medium traffic, with dry roads and clear visibility, failed to maintain a safe distance between the vehicle driven, and that of the vehicle in front, whilst driving at speed.

As a result, the Defendants vehicle swerved into the outside lane, and collided with another vehicle being driven at speed in the fast lane, causing that vehicle to collide with the central reservation; the defendant`s vehicle, then swerved back across the motorway towards the hard shoulder. The driver of the other vehicle sustained serious injuries.

On instructions, a Guilty plea was entered.

We provided legal submissions and argument before the Magistrates, and as a result the sentence of the Court was:

• 9 penalty points
• Fine: £700
• Prosecution costs: £350

The Law

The manoeuvre of overtaking at speed resulting in a collision of vehicles, or driving bordering on the dangerous, with higher culpability for excessive speed, and a factor indicating a greater degree of harm, being damage to another vehicle, disqualification at the highest,; at the base, 9 points and a Band C fine. Compensation award.

---

---

R .v. Finn
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant, an elderly pensioner, was charged with 3 offences, by way of causing damage to another vehicle in a public car park:

Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / public place without due care and attention, Contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Driver of a vehicle fail to stop after a road accident – failed to give name and address of the owner of and the identification marks of the vehicle, Contrary to section 170(4) of the Road traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Driver of vehicle not having given name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring the details, failure to report the accident at a police station or a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours of the occurrence of the accident Contrary to section 170 (4) of the Road Traffic act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Submissions were made, the Crown withdrew charges 2 and 3, a guilty plea was entered to Section 3, mitigation followed.

The Magistrates provided the following sentence: Fine £135; Crown prosecution costs £200; compensation £225, victim surcharge £15; 3 penalty points.

---

---

R .v. O`Donnell
Luton Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a disqualified driver for a drink driving offence, was during the period of disqualification from driving a motor vehicle, stopped by police for speeding, and found to be disqualified and failing to have motor insurance.

Charges

• Drove a vehicle on a road whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence, contrary to section 103(1)(B) Road Traffic act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Used a motor vehicle on a road when there was not in force in relation to that use such a policy of insurance oe such a security of third party risks as complied with the requirements of part V1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988,, contrary to Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The Defendant pleaded Guilty, and Penman Sedgwick made submissions in mitigation of an all option report including custody.

Sentence

In Respect of S.103 (1):

• 12 month Community Order (no work requirement) with a requirement of 12 months supervision.
• Disqualification from driving for a period of 6 months.

In Respect of S.143:
Licence endorsed, no points.
Prosecution costs: £85.00

The Law

In respect of S. 103 (1):
Lengthy period of ban already served
Starting point High Level Community Order 150-300 hours; an activity requirement up to the maximum 60 days; an Order lasting 12 months or 12 Weeks Custody; Lengthen disqualification for 6 – 12 months beyond expiry of current ban.
In respect of S.143:
Band C Fine and 6 – 12 months disqualification.

---

---

R .v. Cresner
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a motorway, at a speed exceeding 70 mph, with a recorded speed of 99.86 mph, Contrary to regulation 3 of the Motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974, section 17(40 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic offenders Act 1988.

At the time, the Defendant had a recorded 9 penalty points on the licence.

Note – that under the totting up procedure, there would have been 15 points; and as a result a disqualification period imposed.

Penman Sedgwick, defending, a plea of Guilty was entered, and legal submissions were made together with mitigation argument of Hardship other than Exceptional Hardship.

The Magistrates accepted the mitigation propounded by Penman Sedgwick.

Sentence

• Fine: £300.00
• Prosecution costs: £70.00
• Victim surcharge of £15.00

---

---

R .v. Briggs
Stevenage Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle, a Bentley Continental Bossage, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in the breath was 61 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Penman Sedgwick defending, a plea of Guilty was entered. On the basis of mitigation put forward by usl to the Court, the sentence of the Court was:

• Disqualification for a period of 17 months
• Fine of £1,000.00
• Victim Surcharge : £15.00
• A Drink Drive Rehabilitation course offered, reducing on successful completion the disqualification period by 17 weeks.

The Law

The disqualification period available to the Court in this instance was between 17 – 22 months, and starting at a Band C fine, being a starting point of 150% of relevant weekly income to 175% of relevant weekly income.

---

---

R. v. Mersch
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was originally advised that proceedings were contemplated on the basis of being charged with a Section 2 of the Road Traffic 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic offenders Act 1988, being Dangerous Driving.

After instructions to Penman Sedgwick:

The Defendant was charged with driving a vehicle without due care and attention, Contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Defendant entered a Not Guilty Plea, and on the considerable details in this case, a Defence Statement was served on the Prosecution.

The result being, that the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the charge, and the matter was withdrawn.

Penman Sedgwick made an Application for Defence costs, to be taxed from Central Funds which was granted by the Magistrates.

---

---

R .v. Fronda
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was prosecuted by way of Summons for failing to give information as to the drivers identity as required, contrary to Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; whereupon the vehicle in question was alleged to have been speeding in excess of 40 m.p.h, and caught by an automatic camera device. A similar prosecution was issued to another person in the vehicle.

Both occupants of the vehicle denied being the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time.
We made submissions that on the evidence provided by the Crown, there was not sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, which provided for the Crown to withdraw the prosecution.

Defence costs were awarded.

---

---

R .v. Boxall
Brent Magistrates Court

Allegation

The Defendant drove a motor vehicle on a road, exceeding 50 mph, contrary to a length of road specified in Schedule 1 of the A40 trunk road (Western Avenue, Hillingdon) (speed limits) Order 1998 (9624) sections 84 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Facts

A Redspeed-speed curb system, designed or adopted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of sensors or cables on or near the surface of the highway recorded a vehicle speed of 61 mph on a 50 mph road.

The traffic unit were required to attend court to produce detailed photographic evidence and a certificate of calibration, which had not been forthcoming, for the particular system in situ.

On the basis of evidence produced at a late stage, a plea of Guilty was entered. The Defendants drivers licence had recorded 9 penalty points; and 3 penalty points of those recorded, were legally challenged in submission, arguing that there should be only 6 penalty points prior to 3 penalty points being endorsed on the licence for the current matter before the Court, which was accepted, accordingly, the totting up procedure for a disqualification based on 12 penalty points was avoided.

Sentence

• 3 penalty points
• £120 fine
• £15 Victim surcharge
• £150 prosecution costs

---

---

R .v. Kabir
Kings Lynn Magistrates Court
Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was Summonsed for using a hand-held mobile telephone contrary to Regulation 110(1) of the Road Vehicles ( Construction and Use ) Regulations 1986, section 41D OF THE Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The offence took place in the County of Norfolk, and Applications were made to the two first two Magistrates Courts to remove the matter to Watford Magistrates Court on a plea of Guilty, which was accepted.

In addition, there was an allegation of drink driving, investigated by police, in another area, which was not proceeded with.

The Defendant had 9 points on his licence at the time. Full mitigation was given to the Court by way of an extreme hardship argument under section 35(4)(b) of the Offenders Act 1988, the Court having imposed 3 penalty points, and therefore under the Totting Up procedure, being 12 points, being liable to disqualification, in respect of offences committed within a period of three years. The minimum period of disqualification being for a period of 6 months.

The Magistrates accepted the submissions, and the Defendant was fined £165.00, Victim surcharge costs of £15.00 and Prosecution costs of £60.00. The Defendant was not disqualified.

---

---

R. v. Lundvall
Hendon Magistrates Court

The Defendant, a Swedish Citizen, was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a road, otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle, in circumstances where the driving would have been in accordance with any licence that could have been granted, Contrary to section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

In fact, the Defendant did have a relevant Swedish licence, and to which instructing Solicitors obtained a full official English translation, and on the basis of submissions, the Defendant was found not guilty, and a Defendant’s Costs Order made.

---

---

R .v. Sabathemel
Hempstead Magistrates Court

Facts

The Defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in the breath was 106 Microgrammes of Alcohol in 100 Millilitres of Breath and exceeded the prescribed limit. As a result, thereto, the vehicle so driven crashed. ( Legal limit 35 Microgrammes )Charge: Contrary to Section 5(1)(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 To the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Plea

A Plea of was Guilty entered.The Law:As to sentencing, the starting point on this mid-level offence, being between 90-119 Breath (mg) is a Medium Level Community Order, and a DISQUALIFICATION BETWEEN 23 – 28 MONTHS. A maximum level fine of £5,000.00 ( Level 5 ).The prosecution sought £300.00 in costs.

Result

Legal submissions were made by Penman Sedgwick, and as a result the sentence was as follows Prosecution costs of £70.00 20 Months disqualification, with a 20 week reduction for accepting Drink Driver Rehabilitation Course and completing the same by a given date, and a Supervision Order of 12 months ( Community Order ).

---

---

R. v . Kang
Hertford Magistrates Court

The Defendant was summonsed on two offences:

• Drove a motor vehicle on a road otherwise in accordance with a licence authorising the Defendant to drive a motor vehicle, contrary to section 87(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Drove a motor vehicle on a road, when using a hand-held mobile telephone, contrary to regulation 110(1) of the Road Vehicles ( Construction and Use ) Regulations 1986, section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The Defendant had recorded 9 points on his licence.A plea was not entered to the first offence being otherwise in accordance with a licence, and the CPS were persuaded in submissions to withdraw the offence, which the Magistrates accepted.A plea of Guilty was entered to the second offence.

Penman Sedgwick then made legal submissions as to hardship other than exceptional hardship, to persuade the Court not to exercise the totting up procedure of penalty points, and so not to disqualify the Defendant from driving, which was duly accepted by the Court. The sentence passed was a fine of £200.00, and prosecution costs of £60.00 were awarded. Further, three points were placed on the licence, making twelve in total.

---

---

R v Caple
Stevenage Magistrates Court

The Defendant, being the owner and registered keeper of a vehicle, had placed the vehicle in for service with the dealership. During the course of the afternoon, while the vehicle was still under the control of the dealership, the driver of the vehicle was caught by way of a speed camera.

Subsequently a Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to the Defendant to complete (under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988). The owner and registered keeper is required to supply the information so requested.

The Defendant, merely wrote across the Part 2 details “Please send photo evidence, as I am not aware of this offence” and signed the form and returned it to the Safety Camera Unit.

In the interim, the Defendant endeavoured to ascertain by way of letter and telephone enquiry as to who the name of the driver of the vehicle from the dealership at the relevant time, and copied letters to the Court and Crown Prosecution Service.

The dealership failed to provide the name of the driver and would not attend Court as a witness for the Defence.The Defendant was later issued with a Summons for the following two offences:

• The Defendant, having been required by or on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police, failed to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, Contrary to Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• The Defendant drove a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 mph (38 mph) contrary to Sections 81 (1) and 89 (1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Penman Sedgwick were instructed in the defence at trial.Legal argument by way of submissions as to a Defence by way of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and authority of a Judgment of the High Court of Justice Queens Bench before Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Nelson.

The Court was respectfully asked on the basis of submissions to return a finding of Not Guilty.The Defendant was accordingly found Not Guilty and on application, we were awarded Defence Costs to be assessed from Central Funds.

---

---

R .v. Sharp
Watford Magistrates Court

The Defendant, an adult male, was using a Childs quad bike by way of returning it to his home from fields along a public footpath, when stopped by a community officer and a police officer.

As a result the Defendant was charged with two offences:

• Using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place when there was not in force in relation to that use such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complied with the requirements of Part V1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
• Without lawful authority, drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, on a road being a footpath Contrary to section 34(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

At trial, legal submissions were made as to the clear fact that a childs quad bike, was just that, and no insurance company would insure such a bike. The Magistrates accepted the argument, and found the Defendant not guilty of driving without insurance.

The Magistrates found the Defendant guilty of driving on a footpath, and the sentence imposed was a fine of £25 with costs of £150 and a victim surcharge of £15.

On application to the magistrates, Defence were granted half of the defence costs on an Order from Central funds.

---

---

R .v. Hossu
Harlow Magistrates Court

Represented the client who was prosecuted for driving a motor vehicle without a policy of insurance contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This offence carries between 6 to 8 penalty points, obligatory endorsement and a discretionary disqualification and fine based on level 3 of the standard scale. It is a summary offence.

The client had, prior to Court, 6 points on his licence. Full exceptional hardship mitigation argument to the Court was made, which was accepted, and resulted in the licence being endorsed with 6 penalty points, no disqualification as a totter (12 points) and a £400 fine, £15 victim surcharge and £50 prosecution costs.

---

---

R .v. Makin
St. Albans Magistrates Court

Defended client charged with using a hand held mobile telephone contrary to regulation 110(1) of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Mr Makin already had 9 current penalty points on his licence and was subject to disqualification under the totting up procedure, being 3 points for using a mobile telephone. In mitigation, an exceptional hardship argument was submitted to the bench of three lay Magistrates so not to disqualify.

The bench accepted the submissions so made, and the result was:

• Fined £60.00
• Victim surcharge of £15.00
• A contribution of £35.00 prosecution costs
• 3 points added to his licence, making the total number of points 12
• No disqualification

---

---

R .v. Gourley
St.Albans Magistrates Court

Client alleged to have failed to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely double white line road markings lawfully placed on a road, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulations 10 and 26 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, at trial pleaded not guilty and was after trial acquitted and obtained costs.

---

---

R .v. Scott
Harrow Magistrates Court

Client alleged to have driven on the M1 Motorway at a speed exceeding 70 mph contrary to Regulation 3 of the motorways Traffic (Speed Limit) Regulations 1974 section 17(4) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, argument based on the technical evidence of the police pilot 2000 speed detection device and number plate recognition. The prosecution issued a notice of discontinuance.

---

---

R.v. Takacs
St. Albans Magistrates Court

Defended client charged contrary to Section 5(1)(b) Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988, in that being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place, namely the car park of a club, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in the breath exceeded the prescribed limit.

Legal argument was put forward in the trial based on legal authorities that the car park of the club was a private car park and not a public car park albeit a public place, and indeed was a members club, and that to use the club`s facilities, an individual first had to become a member. The police exercised their duty incorrectly.

The Legal argument propounded was accepted, and the Defendant found Not Guilty with legal costs being awarded on Application.

---

---

R. v Sula
R. v Hickson

Defended two clients in a trial alleged to have driven with no learner plates on the vehicle whilst a provisional licence holder; and the full licence holder with aiding and abetting the provisional holder. Returned Not Guilty on both counts.

---

---

R.v.Sulyman
High Wycombe Magistrates Court

The Defendant was charged under section 143(2) Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 Road Traffic offences Act 1988, in that a policy of insurance was not in place when using a motor vehicle on the road.

On legal submissions in Court, the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the charge, and the Defendant was awarded costs of the defence against the CPS.