Contesting a charge

To secure a verdict of guilty the prosecution must provide proof in the form of evidence. The court must be sure (beyond reasonable doubt) that this is the correct verdict.

Flaws in procedure and process can lead to the exclusion of prosecution evidence.

Or you may have a complete defence on your own account.
We will examine your case to ascertain if there is anything which offers a reasonable prospect for success at trial.

We deal with the full range of motoring offences

Driving with excess alcohol

Driving with drugs above the legal limit

Driving without due care and attention

Death by
careless driving

Dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving

Causing serious injury by careless driving

And everything else to do with motoring, transport and your driving licence

There are many ways to defend a case and it is important to keep an open mind. Amongst our myriad successes are these..:

J had already pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol by the time he consulted us. His was a high reading which placed him at risk of custody. On looking into his case we established that the incident had not been on a road or other public place. The guilty plea was re-opened and a not guilty plea was entered. The prosecution offered no evidence.

R faced a speeding charge involving an average speed camera check. Ordinarily a straightforward matter for the prosecution to prove. In this instance, even after a series of adjournments, the prosecution failed to provide key evidence until the day of trial. The court agreed that a fair trial cold not take place on that day and refused an application for a further adjournment. The prosecution were obliged to offer no evidence.

G was charged with driving with drugs in his system [cannabis] above the prescribed limit. At trial we established that he had smoked cannabis after driving. The science simply does not exist to carry out a back-calculation to determine the reading when driving [as it does in excess alcohol cases].

it’s not over until it’s over…..

Even pleading guilty or being found guilty after trial does not always mean you have to suffer the ordinary consequences (including disqualification).

Exceptional Hardship

Accumulating twelve or more points on your driving record makes you a ‘totter’ and liable to disqualification for at least six months [ twelve months if you have done so for the second time within three years and two years for a third time]
We can help you keep driving by arguing that disqualification would cause you or someone else ‘exceptional hardship’.
What constitutes exceptional hardship is assessed on a case by case basis.

Loss of employment [for example] will not in itself justify a finding of exceptional hardship; but the consequences may well.
Exceptional Hardship arguments we have used include….

Loss of employment leading to loss of accommodation

Reduction in a family budget such that private school fees could no longer be afforded

Reduction in the earning capacity of a surgeon so as to jeopardise his voluntary work overseas.

Loss of employment by employees of our client with attendant consequences

There is no restriction on what might be considered exceptional hardship; but it must be hardship over and above the ordinary consequences of disqualification.

We will advise you as to any personal circumstances which give you a prospect for arguing exceptional hardship. We will collate and present evidence to support your position.

Special Reasons

The concept of special reasons gives the court a discretion to reduce or completely remove the normal consequences of a conviction, including disqualification.

Call Caroline or Carol and we’ll see what we can do to keep you on the road.

A special reason must:

– be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance
– not amount in law to a defence to the charge
– be directly connected with the commission of the offence
– be one which the court ought properly to take into account when imposing sentence

Examples of special reasons we have had success with include:

– a mistake made by our client’s mother who had charge of sorting out family insurances
– shortness of distance driven, where our client moved his vehicle a matter of metres to bring it to a more secure position under lights in a public car park [excess alcohol]
– where an insurance policy was issued in different terms to those agreed by telephone when it was taken out