Geoffrey Miller Solicitors

Case Studies

Trevor Downing – Principal of The Trevor Downing Practice – financial advice consultancy- Kent

Mr Downing was prosecuted for the offence of speeding. Our client was a senior businessman and financial adviser whose driving licence was essential to him in continuing to work.

At trial we made a submission of no case to answer which was upheld on the grounds that:

• There was no admissible evidence that the speed camera was an approved device and
• the record produced by the speed camera had not been served less than seven days before the trial date.

The proceedings were therefore dismissed and a court order for payment of defence costs from central funds to be taxed. Mr Downing’s costs were reimbursed in full by the Court.

Helen Carville – sales professional, Midlands

Ms Carville was pleading guilty to driving with excess speed at Kendal Magistrates’ Court. She already had 3 points on her licence.

She is a single mother to two young children who were staying with their grandparents in Scotland; she received a telephone call to say her mother had been taken ill; she rushed to Scotland to collect her children as her mother could not look after them. She had work commitments the same day and drove at excess speed of 110 miles per hour in a 70mph limit.

She was employed as a Business Development Manager with Vodaphone and was due to start a new job with Phone Logistics just days before her court appearance. This involved travelling to see any number of 15,000 mobile phone retailers as required. She was told that if she lost her licence they would no longer be able to employ her.

She has a 7 year old child who suffers from Dyspraxia which affects his co-ordination making walking very difficult for him. He also suffers from mild autism. As a single parent she was completely reliant on her car to work and to care for her children.

After mitigation Ms Carville’s licence was endorsed with 6 points and she was fined £250.

Ms T - London

Ms T pleaded guilty to driving at 100mph in a 70mph limit. She was facing the possibility of a short disqualification. She had 3 points on her licence already when she contacted us.

She needed to avoid a ban as she had started her own business in July 2005. She is a self employed nutritionist and works with clients at a clinic and at their homes. If she could not offer the flexibility of visiting clients at home she was concerned that her new business would not succeed. As this was a new business, she had not made any real financial profit and the extra cost of public transport would add further financial strain to her new business. She also volunteered at Battersea Dogs Home and due to the distance; this would not be possible without her car.

We advised on mitigation and after representation her licence was endorsed with 5 points and she was fined £100.

J Dhillon- self employed- Slough Berks

This client was prosecuted for the offence of speeding in Lincolnshire Magistrates’ Court. He was alleged to have been travelling at a speed of 98 mph in a 60 mph limit. He was pulled over by the Police who were using a Police Pilot device.

The case was discontinued prior to trial and the Court ordered that the client be paid costs from central funds. After assessing the client’s bill, they agreed to pay 76% of the bill submitted to them.

Mr W – Financial Adviser - London

This client was prosecuted in South East Wiltshire Magistrates’ Court for driving at a speed of 98 mph in a 70 mph zone.

It was crucial that the client be able to continue to drive in order for him to visit his clients.

The prosecution discontinued their case 2 days before trial and an order for costs to be paid from the Court’s central funds was made.

ADe A

This client was prosecuted for the offence of speeding on the M5 Motorway and if convicted would have faced disqualification under the totting up provisions. The trial was due to be heard at Rugby Magistrates’ Court. However, after pointing out to the Prosecution the deficiencies in their case they discontinued the case 2 ½ months before the trial was listed to take place.

The Court ordered that the client be paid costs from central funds and after assessing the client’s bill, they agreed to pay 100% of the bill submitted to them.

CLICK HERE to fill in our online enquiry form