Speeding and failure to identify driver defence
Blake Morgan's Driver Defence team is the leading team of specialist road traffic lawyers in the South of England. We have been recognised by legal directory Chambers and Partners: A Client's Guide to the Legal Profession 2017 as a Band 1 firm in this field. Our team of specialist lawyers travel all the country to help motorists facing a driving ban or having penalty points put on their licence. Our work has taken us to Magistrates and Crown Courts all over the country. Many of our cases have reached the Higher Courts.
Our team acted for a client convicted in his absence of the count of failing to identify driver details and was disqualified from driving for a period of six months under the totting up provisions.
Our client consulted Blake Morgan's Driver Defence team with regard to a postal requisition returnable before Basingstoke Magistrates' Court alleging counts of speeding and failing to identify details of the driver of a motor vehicle involved in the speeding incident. The proceedings were prosecuted by the Police Led Prosecutions Team of Hampshire Constabulary.
Our client, Mr O, was convicted in his absence of the count of failing to identify driver details and was disqualified from driving for a period of six months under the totting up provisions. Mr O maintained that he was innocent of the allegation of failing to identify driver details. Mr O was adamant that he did respond to the request naming himself as the driver of the vehicle at the material time.
How our Driver Defence team helped
Barry Culshaw a consultant and road traffic specialist within Blake Morgan's motoring offences team advised Mr O throughout the conduct of the case. Pursuant to Barry's advice Mr O lodged an application with the Magistrates' Court seeking a reopening of the case pursuant to section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
The court decided to grant the application and when the conviction and sentence was set aside the prosecutor decided in all the circumstances not to proceed with either allegation and both counts were withdrawn. The court made a defence costs order in the defendant's favour.
Mr O was very pleased and relieved at the outcome as a lengthy period of disqualification would have had a disastrous impact on his livelihood.