Case Studies

We pride ourselves at Motoring Law Defence in the high percentage of successful results we achieve for our clients. Here are just a few examples of the many ways in which we have assisted our clients in saving their licences and keeping them on the road.

Case Study One

Mr D was facing two allegations of speeding and two allegations of failing to provide drivers details as to the identity of the driver under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Using our services not guilty pleas were entered in relation to all matters. Owing to representations from Motoring Law Defence just before the Trial took place the prosecution agreed to withdraw the two matters of speeding and the Trial was therefore just in relation to the two matters of failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. At the Trial the barrister from Motoring Law Defence persuaded the Magistrates that Mr D had never received the original forms asking him to identify the driver as he was no longer living at the address which they were sent to and therefore he couldn’t have returned these forms duly completed within the set time.

Outcome

Mr D was found not guilty and a Defendants Costs Order was ordered and Mr D received back all of the costs which he had paid to Motoring Law Defence.

Case Study Two

Mrs H contacted Motoring Law Defence because she had been accused of speeding and also not returning the form identifying who the driver was within the set period of time. Not guilty pleas were entered in relation to both matters. Before the Trial took place Motoring Law Defence managed to persuade the prosecution to withdraw the matter of speeding and just concentrate on the matter of failing to give the drivers details. In the Trial itself the solicitor from Motoring Law Defence very effectively argued that Mrs H’s postal service was not working properly and therefore she simply had not received the form asking her to identify who the driver was in the first place and therefore she could not have completed this. Mrs H’s husband also gave evidence at the Trial to say that their postal service was far from adequate.

Outcome

Mrs H was found not guilty. An application for her costs from central funds was made by Motoring Law Defence and she received all the costs back that she had paid for her defence work in full.

Case Study Three

Mr MH contacted Motoring Law Defence because he had been accused of speeding and also not returning the form identifying who the driver was within the set period of time. Not guilty pleas were entered in relation to both matters. Motoring Law Defence made written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service to discontinue all matters against MH as there was clear evidence that the form asking for the identification of the driver had been sent to the wrong address.

Outcome

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case against MH in the light of the written representations from Motoring Law Defence and therefore there wasn’t even a Trial. Mr MH then received a payment from central funds for all the money which he had paid to Motoring Law Defence.

Case Study Four

Ms B was accused of drink driving. Motoring Law Defence on her behalf made written representations to the Crown Prosecution Service asking whether they would accept a plea to being drunk in charge in return for withdrawing the matter of drink driving which carries a mandatory ban. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted this offer.

Outcome
The matter of drink driving was withdrawn and replaced by a matter of being drunk in charge. For this matter Ms B received points on her licence but was still able to drive.

Case Study Five

Ms L was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath at the Police Station. She instructed Motoring Law Defence and entered a not guilty plea at the court. At Trial Motoring Law Defence managed to show with the help of a medical expert that at the Police Station she had been in a state of heightened anxiety and was therefore not able to provide the breath sample because of the stress she was under.

Outcome
The Magistrates recognised that she had a reasonable excuse and she was found not guilty and was therefore able to keep her licence.

Case Study Six

Mr AB was found by the Police approaching his vehicle in a drunken state. The police asked him to give a roadside breath test and he refused. The Police charged Mr AB with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle and refusing to comply with the roadside breath test. Mr AB instructed Motoring Law Defence. He entered not guilty pleas in relation to both matters at court. Matters then progressed towards Trial. The court ordered that the Prosecution should give Motoring Law Defence certain information. Shortly before Trial Motoring Law Defence telephoned the Crown Prosecution Service and pointed out that they had not given the documentation to them which the court had asked them to and pointed out how they would be open to criticism for this if matters went to Trial. The Crown Prosecution Service therefore accepted Motoring Law Defence’s offer of a guilty plea to the matter of failing to give the roadside breath test in return for the matter of being drunk in charge being discontinued. There was therefore no need for a Trial.

Outcome
In relation to the matter of failing to comply with the roadside breath test Mr AB just received four penalty points on his licence and was still therefore able to drive.

For expert advice, call us at Motoring Law Defence FREEPHONE on 0808 178 3288

"Defending the motorist throughout the South West "