Below are some examples of the types of cases we deal with on a regular basis.
If you are facing an allegation or charge for a motoring offence the first step is to contact us. All enquiries are treated in the strictest of confidence.
Call Charles Cronin on 01225 485700, email firstname.lastname@example.org or complete the enquiry form at the bottom of this page.
View Drink Driving - Technical Defence
Mr A was arrested and charged with ‘driving with excess alcohol’. Mr A was a lorry driver who had returned home after a long day and a very early start. After spending some time at home he drove to the shops and then to see his mother, on his way home he had a minor collision with a wall, no other vehicles or people were involved.
He returned home and decided to drink some wine before going to bed. He drank fairly heavily and was dozing in the living room when the police arrived.
A member of the public had seen the minor collision and had reported this to the police. As a result the police attended Mr A’s address.
He explained that he had consumed alcohol after returning home and provided a breath specimen and was arrested by the police.
Mr A instructed Charles Cronin who reviewed the case and instructed an expert to prepare relevant calculations concerning a technical defence. The report supported Mr A’s claim that he had consumed all of the alcohol after driving.
The case proceeded to trial after the Crown Prosecution Service refused to drop the case. Charles cross examined the police and produced expert evidence to prove that Mr A was telling the truth.
The Magistrates’ decided that Mr A was not guilty. The magistrates accepted the expert evidence and believed that A was a credible witness. An application was made to allow a partial recovery of A’s defence costs which was granted.
View Totting & Exceptional Hardship
Mr M had received a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and realised that that he had been driving when his car had been caught speeding. He returned the NIP confirming he was the driver and in due course received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) through the post. He decided that he would plead guilty and attend court as he knew he already had 9 points endorsed on his licence.
Mr M instructed a solicitor to help him at court. He explained to the court that he was a single parent with two young children and a mortgage. He did not have savings and relied on his monthly salary as a salesman to cover his mortgage payments. His employer had told him that if he was disqualified from driving he would lose his job.
With full legal representation this information was provided to the court with supporting evidence. The magistrates felt that the loss of job, failed mortgage payments and the knock on effect on the children was sufficient to amount to exceptional hardship. Mr M was not disqualified from driving.
Mr C received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) in relation to an allegation of speeding. He already had points on his licence and was worried about what might happen. Mr C instructed a solicitor who professionally reviewed the SJPN and noticed that the date of the document was on the last day of the deadline for the court to receive specific details of the alleged offending. The solicitor checked with the court the day after the deadline and received confirmation that the necessary details were not received by the court within the necessary time period. Mr C instructed his solicitor to forward this point on his behalf. The police refused to accept the representations at court and the case was adjourned. The police withdrew the prosecution.
View Police Misreading Number Plates
Miss E received a letter to say that she had been found guilty of speeding and given penalty points and a fine. She was confused and upset as she not even been to the location of the speeding and had been unaware of the prosecution. She had a professional qualification and was concerned about how the conviction would reflect upon her.
She instructed a solicitor to help. The solicitor spoke to the police and obtained photographs from the camera that recorded the speeding. Although the image depicted the same make of car and colour as the defendants, careful scrutiny clearly showed that the shape and styling of the vehicle was clearly different. It was apparent that the image of the registration plate was not completely clear. One letter had been misread and an internet search showed that this was in fact a completely different car, with a different owner.
Representations were made to the police who realised and accepted the error. The relevant court was contacted and the conviction overturned.