Timing is Everything: How Holding Back a Defence Point Can Win a Case

In criminal defence, especially in motoring law, success often comes down to timing. While it may seem logical to raise every possible argument at the earliest opportunity, experienced defence lawyers know that sometimes the most effective tactic is to hold back a technical point until the right stage of proceedings. Doing so can transform what looks like a hopeless case into a successful appeal.

In fact, we are aware of many lawyers who claim to be able to get cases dropped before charges are even brought. we have not seen any data being published by such firms and suspect this to be a sales ploy as opposed to a viable strategic plan.

In our experience making representations pre-charge or prior to our first court hearing is a strategy that can backfire and place a defendant in a much less favourable position. If you reveal all of your arguments to your opponents and they reject them, they are simply forewarned and forearmed to overcome your defence. Therefore, we only tend to reach out with representations to the police or CPS at the early stages of the case if our arguments are watertight and the Crown’s case is unlikely to be improved by revealing the defence points.

Case Study 1: The Wrong Drug

We recently advised in a case where the prosecution charged our client with being over the prescribed limit for “cannabis litres.” Of course, there is no such substance. The correct charge should have been for THC (the active ingredient in cannabis).

At first glance, it would have been easy to raise this in the magistrates’ court. However, doing so would only have given the prosecution the chance to correct the error on the spot, arguing it was a simple typo.

Instead, we advised running the case on all other available grounds, while keeping the charging error in reserve. Had the client been convicted, this error would have been a watertight ground of appeal, as a conviction cannot later be amended to reflect a different offence. In this case, the prosecution dropped the case before trial once other disclosure issues were exposed.

Case Study 2: Road or Public Place?

In another matter, a client was charged with drink driving “on a road.” The difficulty for the Crown was that the incident took place entirely within a private car park. The law makes a clear distinction between driving on a road and driving in a public place.

Had we raised this in the magistrates’ court, the Crown would have simply amended the charge to say “public place.” Instead, we pursued every other defence point and kept this one in our back pocket. As it happened, the case was dismissed for unrelated reasons. However, had there been a conviction, the charge wording would have provided a strong appeal point that could not be corrected afterwards.

Case Study 3: Fail to Furnish – Wrong Date

One of the most common technical flaws arises in “fail to furnish” cases under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. In one case, the prosecution alleged that the offence was committed on a date that fell before our client’s statutory time limit to respond had even expired.

Again, raising this error at the first hearing would only have helped the prosecution amend the charge. By holding it back, we were able to preserve it as an unanswerable ground of appeal had a conviction been recorded. In this instance, once the prosecution realised the date problem could not be corrected after the fact, the case was withdrawn.

Why This Strategy Works

The distinction is simple:

1. Before conviction – The court has power to allow amendments to charges to correct errors.
2. After conviction – The offence itself cannot be altered. A person cannot be convicted of one offence and then retrospectively treated as if convicted of another.

By holding back a technical flaw, the defence preserves a safety net. If all else fails and the magistrates convict, that flaw becomes decisive on appeal.

Why Clients Benefit

This strategy is not about playing games. It is about ensuring the prosecution is held to the correct legal standard. The Crown has the resources and responsibility to draft charges properly. If they fail to do so, the defence is entitled to rely on that failure.

For our clients, this approach can mean the difference between a criminal conviction and a successful outcome.

25 years of strategic ammunition

Trading for 25 years in 2025, our strategies have evolved and our experience and know how has placed us at the forefront of the motoring law industry.

We are regularly consulted by clients have been recommended to us by those in the criminal justice sector including prosecutors, police officers, magistrates, and other solicitors who know we hold specialist knowledge and strategy beyond many general criminal solicitors.

In motoring law, timing can be just as important as substance. At Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, we know when to challenge and when to wait, ensuring every possible advantage is preserved for our clients.

If you are facing prosecution for drink driving, drug driving, or failing to provide driver details, please get in touch. when we are appointed, our specialist team will provide a tailored defence strategy designed to give you the very best chance of success.