Case Name: R v. M
Court: Oxford Magistrates’ Court, 22nd September 2016
With 9 points already on his licence, Mr M’s latest speeding offence meant that he faced a 6 month disqualification from driving. However, with the help of a Road Law Barrister, Mr M kept his licence and was only fined £85. The submissions of Mr M’s barrister together with supporting evidence, convinced the Magistrates that to disqualify Mr M would cause ‘Exceptional Hardship’ to him and his partner.
Case Name: R v. C
Court: Leeds Magistrates’ Court, 1st March 2016
Having been caught travelling at 56 mph in a 30 mph zone, Mr C was required to attend court because the Magistrates considered that he would likely be sentenced to a period of disqualification. However, despite the sentencing guidelines recommending a starting point of up to 56 days disqualification from driving, he escaped with his licence and 6 penalty points instead. This was only achieved by persuading the court that disqualification would have a disproportionate impact upon Mr C and others that relied upon him. The key to the case was obtaining evidence to support these submissions. Should you require advice on what types of evidence that you need to help you keep your licence, please contact one of our barristers.
Case Name: Mr R v. LCC
Court: Leeds Magistrates’ Court, 12th December 2015
Mr R successful appealed against the revocation of his taxi licence. In this case allegations were made against him on Facebook that found their way into the local press. This led to a trial by media and the council deciding to revoke his licence. However, after the complainant was cross examined by one of our expert barristers, the Magistrates reversed the Council’s decision and allowed Mr R to leave court with his livelihood and good name still in tact.
Case Name: R. v Mr G
Court: Leeds Magistrates’ Court, 12 May 2015
Mr G was charged with Failing to Stop after an Accident and Driving Without Due Care and Attention. If convicted he faced the prospect of being disqualified from driving for up to 12 months. However, at the first hearing of his case, his barrister succeeded in persuading the Prosecution to drop the more serious charge of Driving Without Due Care and Attention. Mr G was then able to plead guilty to the lesser offence of Failing to Report an accident and escaped with just a £265 fine and 5 penalty points.
Case Name:R v. T
Court: Leeds Crown Court, 24th September 2014
Having been caught using a false driving licence that he had also used to obtain insurance, Mr T fully expected not only to be disqualified from driving but also to be sent to prison. His case was so serious that it was sent to the Crown Court. However, with the help of a Road Law Barrister, Mr T left the court not in the back of a prison van but behind the wheel of his car.
Case Name: R v. S
Court: Wakefield Magistrates’ Court, 12th September 2014
Mr S was involved in a crash on the M1 at speeds in excess of 50mph, following which he was arrested on suspicion of Drink Driving. As a result of the accident, he was taken to hospital where the police requested a blood sample. Mr S refused and appeared in court facing allegations of Careless Driving and Failing to Provide a Specimen for analysis.
There was evidence that Mr S had been drinking, that his driving bordered on Dangerous and that he deliberately refused to provide a blood sample. According to the Sentencing Guidelines therefore, he faced a sentence a possible sentence of imprisonment and a disqualification from driving in the region of 2 yrs.
However, following hearing representations from a Road Law Barrister, the Judge was persuaded to sentence Mr S to a fine and the shortest possible disqualification in the circumstances (12 months). Therefore, even if you wish to plead guilty to the offence, having a Road Law Barrister on your side will ensure that any penalty is kept to a minimum.
Case Name: R v C.
Court: Grimsby Magistrates Court, 11 August 2014
Mr C was fully expecting a further disqualification when he attended Grimsby Magistrates Court to face prosecution for driving whilst disqualified. It was essential that Mr C avoided a driving ban as he would have been unable to work. On hearing his personal circumstances the court was persuaded to spare Mr C from disqualification that normally should have followed.
Case Name: R v H.
Court: Harrogate Magistrates’ Court, 7 August 2014
We represented a client who was being prosecuted for drink driving. We advised him to plead guilty to the lower reading of 100mg in breath and put forward a robust argument in mitigation in order to minimise his sentence.
The sentencing guidelines provide for a sentencing starting point of a community order. However, our client avoided receiving a community order and instead was fined £180. The magistrate said that our client would have got a community order but for his ‘lawyer’s’ mitigation.
Case Name: R v. H
Court: York Magistrates’ Court, July 2014
Having pleaded guilty to Dangerous Driving, Mr. H faced the prospect of being sentenced to a High Level Community Order or even Imprisonment. However, with the expertise and experience of a Road Law Barrister on his side, he instead received an Absolute Discharge, which in law was the most lenient sentence possible.
Case Name: R v M.
Court: Harrogate Magistrates’ Court, 17 March 2014
Another happy RLB client left Harrogate Magistrates’ Court today without a criminal conviction and with his licence. This was despite being caught driving at over twice the legal limit and then refused to provide a blood sample. Fortunately for him, the police hadn’t followed the procedure for requesting a blood sample correctly and he was acquitted as a result. The Magistrates also awarded a Defence Costs Order in his favour, meaning that he will be reimbursed a large portion of his costs.
Case name: R v. W
Court: Wakefield Magistrates’ Court, 26th February 2014.
Having been caught speeding at 99 mph in a 70 mph zone, Mr W faced the prospect of a 6 month disqualification from driving. This was because this was his forth speeding conviction in two years and he already had 9 penalty points on his licence. He was therefore liable to be disqualified pursuant to the ‘totting up’ provisions.
Such a disqualification would however have meant the loss of his job and had a dramatic impact upon his family. Following a free conference with one of our expert lawyers, Mr W was able to obtain evidence to support his case, which together with the persuasive submissions of his Road Law Barrister resulted in him avoiding disqualification altogether.
Without the expert advice as to the evidence that was required and the submissions of his barrister, Mr W may not have been able to persuade the Magistrates that his hardship was truly ‘exceptional’ and would now not be permitted to drive.
Case Name: R. v Mr B
Court: Wakefield Magistrates’ Court, 15 January 2014.
Mr B had 13 points of his licence and was therefore liable to disqualification under the “totting up” rules. He telephoned Road Law Barristers for help as without his licence he’d lose his livelihood and his family would suffer.
His barrister made Mr B’s personal circumstances into an exceptional hardship argument. The magistrates were persuaded to allow the exceptional hardship argument and Mr B was able to keep his licence and his job.
Case Name: R. v Mr M
Court: Northallerton Magistrates’ Court, 15th November 2013.
Having been caught driving at more than twice the legal limit, Mr M was arrested and required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis. After successfully providing the first sample, he failed to provide the second and was therefore charged with the offence of Failing to Provide, which if convicted would have resulted in a disqualification of between 18 and 24 months.
It was alleged that he deliberately failed to provide the second specimen by not blowing into the breathalyser correctly and a police officer gave evidence to this effect. The officer further stated that he gave Mr M the full cycle in which to provide a specimen and the machine timed out after he failed to do so.
However, careful analysis of the printout for the Camic Datamaster breathalyser and the operating instructions, revealed that Mr M had not been given the full three minute cycle in which to provide his specimen. This directly contradicted the officer’s evidence and enabled our barrister to persuade the court that the procedure was flawed and that therefore, the case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, despite driving at twice the legal limit, through the expertise of a Road Law Barrister, Mr M avoided a conviction and a disqualification. He also obtained a Costs Order to enable him to recover some of the costs of funding his defence himself.
Case Name: R. v Mr C
Court: Scarborough Magistrates’ Court, 17th October 2013
Mr. C was charged with careless driving, having lost control of his car and turning it over into a field with two passengers inside. The penalty for careless driving is a discretionary disqualification or the imposition of 3-9 penalty points. A ban would have been disastrous for Mr. C.
Further, 6 or more penalty points would have led the DVLA to revoke his licence as he was a new driver. Mr. C decided to plead guilty to the charge in order to get the maximum discount off his sentence. One of our Road Law Barristers advised Mr. Clarkson throughout the process.
The barrister persuaded the Magistrates to depart from their sentencing guidelines and impose only 5 penalty points, meaning Mr. C got to keep his licence.
Case Name: R. v Mr W.
Court: Luton Magistrates’ Court, 24 September 2013
Mr. W needed to be able to drive in order to carry on his self-employed business. He had recently accrued 12 points on his licence and needed our help to avoid a disqualification.
Road Law Barristers were able to argue on Mr. W’s behalf that a disqualification would result in exceptional hardship in his case, namely that he would be unable to work and his parents would suffer a detriment as they rely on him for certain matters.
The District Judge hearing the case was persuaded to allow this argument and Mr. W can therefore continue to drive and carry on his business.
Case Name: R. v. L
Court: Teesside Crown Court, June 2013
Mr. L. was convicted at Middlesbrough Magistrates’ Court of carrying a dangerous load – he then sacked his legal team and appealed that conviction and the sentence imposed on him. The prosecution case was that the load he was carrying on his pick up truck was inappropriately secured.
One of our Road Law Barristers represented Mr. L during the appeal hearing. After robust cross-examination from one of our barristers, the lead police officer in the case admitted that the load was, in fact, securely fixed. His Honour Judge Walford allowed Mr. L’s appeal and overturned the conviction after our barrister made a successful submission of no case to answer. Mr. L was also granted a defence costs order to assist him in reclaiming the costs incurred by him in fighting his case
Case Name: R v. Miss G
Court: York Crown Court, May 2013
Miss G had been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of failing to provide information relating to the identity of the driver of her car when it was alleged to have been speeding (often called a s.172 offence). She had been sentenced to a substantial fine, costs, a victim surcharge and 6 penalty points. Miss G then contacted Road Law Barristers and appealed against her conviction to York Crown Court.
One of our Road Law Barristers advised Miss G that she had a defence to the conviction on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable for her to have provided the information requested from her. Miss G won her appeal and her conviction was overturned, meaning she avoided the 6 penalty points and financial penalties initially imposed on her.
Case Name: R v. M
Court: Leeds Magistrates’ Court
Mrs M was able to avoid disqualification from driving following convictions for four speeding offences by relying on exceptional hardship. This was an unusual case because Mrs M was not liable to lose her job should she be banned. However a Road Law Barrister successfully argued exceptional hardship on Mrs M’s behalf persuading Magistrates that disqualifying Mrs M would cause exceptional hardship to others, namely members of the public she helped as a healthcare professional working for the NHS.
Case Name: R v. S
Court: Bradford Magistrates’ Court
Mr S was caught drink driving. He provided a positive sample at both the roadside and the police station. However, after careful examination of the evidence one of our barristers discovered that the police had not followed the procedure properly. Armed with this evidence we were able to construct a legal argument to challenge the admissibility of the breathalyser evidence. The result was that the Crown decided not to pursue the case and all charges were dismissed.
Case: R v. E
Court: Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
Mr E was caught travelling at a speed of 103 mph in a 50 mph zone. The sentencing guideline only goes up to 85 mph and recommends a sentence of between 7 and 56 days disqualification for speeds of 26-35 mph above the speed limit. However, although Mr E was caught travelling in excess of 50 mph above the speed limit, after hearing mitigation from one of our barristers, the Magistrates agreed to sentence him to only 6 penalty points and a fine.
Case: R v. F
Court: Harrogate Magistrates’ Court
Mr F attended Court with 8 penalty points on his licence, expecting to receive another 8 points and be disqualified from driving for 6 months. Luckily, he had one of our experienced barristers on hand. She managed to persuade the magistrates that he would face exceptional hardship if he were disqualified, including the loss of his gardening business and the repossession of his home. Although the points were still imposed, our client kept his driving licence, and left court with a smile on his face.