MOTORING OFFENCE CASE STUDIES

Mr Z was charged with failing to provide a specimen of blood for analysis following a routine stop. It was suspected that he was under the influence of drink or drugs. He pleaded not guilty on the basis of a needle phobia. Following a trial he was acquitted.

Mr Y was summonsed for speeding when his speed had been recorded by a laser LTI/device. A not guilty plea was entered. The defence case was that serious errors had been made and the prosecution dropped the case before the trial date. A Defendant’s Costs Order was made following Mr Y’s acquittal.

Ms X was summonsed for an offence of driving without due care and attention following a multi-vehicle collision. The case was won by Olliers successfully arguing that her driving was not the cause of the accident. A Defendant’s Costs Order was granted following her acquittal.

Mr W faced two allegations of failing to furnish details of driver and speeding. In relation to both cases he pleaded not guilty and was acquitted in two trials as a result of evidence from himself and his wife that the NIP was never received. A Defendant’s Costs Order was made.

Mr V was summonsed for speeding, the allegation being that he had been travelling at 102 miles per hour on the motorway. The case was won after the prosecution were unable to prove that the Police Pilot was correctly calibrated. A Defendant’s Costs Order was made.

Mrs U was summonsed for speeding where her speed had been recorded by a laser LTI20/20 device. She also faced an allegation of failing to furnish particular of the driver. The prosecution were unable to prove the link between the person summonsed and the registered keeper.

Mr T was summonsed in relation to failing to provide details of driver. There was ambiguity as to whether the summons should be against a company or an individual and after a not guilty plea was entered the case was dropped. A Defendant’s Costs Order was made.

Following a guilty plea to speeding Mr S contacted Olliers to advance an argument of exceptional hardship so as to avoid disqualification under the totting up provisions. The argument was accepted because of a risk of an adverse effect upon his business.

Mr R was charged with an offence of excess alcohol. We attended the first appearance with Mr R who intended to plead guilty. However upon looking at the prosecution evidence it was apparent that the intoximeter was faulty and despite a very high reading the case was immediately dropped following representations by us.

These case studies are not an exhaustive list and when speaking to one of our Solicitors please do not hesitate to ask whether they have dealt with any cases that may be more similar to the circumstances of your own.