KNOW YOUR RIGHTS


skidded on black ice and hit a road sign. There wasn’t too much damage but I did knock the sign over. The driver in the car behind called the police. The police officer accused me of going too fast as I told them it was a brand new car and they said that I must have been testing it out to see how fast it could go which was just a lie. They gave me a court date and I attended and pleaded not guilty. My trial is listed at the Magistrates’ Court. Can you represent me?


Answer: The starting point for any allegation of driving without due care and attention is that the facts speak for themselves. It’s a Latin phrase called ‘res ipsa loquitur’. On the face of it, you have had a crash with no external involvement. So the court is entitled to assume that the facts speak for themselves and that it must be your fault.


The police are even going one step further by suggesting that you must have been driving quickly and testing your new car. We will need to determine exactly what evidence they have of this.


If you are putting forward a reasonable explanation such as skidding on black ice, we will need to get evidence of that. I would suggest we get weather reports and see if the driver of the car behind will provide a statement to confirm whether it was icy. However, even then, if you knew it was icy the court will expect you to adjust your speed to the conditions.


This is all going to come down to the specific facts of the case - what they can prove and what we can prove.


Outcome: The first thing we did was obtain a copy of the prosecution evidence. It turned out that there was absolutely no evidence of him speeding. There was no dashcam footage and the vehicle behind had given a statement to say he was driving normally. The police assumption that he was testing the speed of his new car was exactly that - just an assumption. It was backed up by no evidence.


In addition, we obtained an weather report from an expert to confirm there was black ice in the area, and we also found local news articles warning drivers of ice on that very day.


So having established that it was icy and that he was not speeding, the only question was whether he ought to have known about the ice and adjusted his speed accordingly. The test for driving without due care and attention is whether the standard of someone’s driving has fallen below that of a careful


PHTM DECEMBER 2025


and competent driver in the circumstances. And in this case, the Magistrates agreed that it was not obviously icy and in the circumstances that he had just been unlucky, and found him not guilty.


Case 4


Question: I was at my Christmas party and I out till late, about 3am. I have no idea how much I had to drink. I left my car there overnight and got a taxi back in the morning at 8am to pick it up. On the way back home I had a crash and hit another vehicle. No one was injured but I was over the drink drive limit. I was arrested, taken to a police station and on the breath machine I blew 45 and 46. I’m going to plead guilty but I’m terrified of going to prison because of the crash. Can you help me?


Answer: The way that sentencing works for drink driving is in brackets. For readings between 36-59 in breath you will be at risk of a 12-16 month ban with a financial penalty. For readings between 60-89, you would receive a 17-22 month ban with financial penalties. For readings of 90-119, you get a 23-28 month ban, financial penalties and community orders (such as unpaid work). For readings of 120 and above, you would receive a minimum 29 month ban, financial penalties and possibly a prison sentence.


So you are miles away from prison or even a community order. You are in the lowest bracket of the guidelines which means you would receive a 12-16 month ban, together with the option of a drink drive course to reduce that by a quarter.


I appreciate you have had a crash, but it sounds like they have not charged you with any allegation of driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving. So if you have only been charged with drink driving, having a crash is not enough to bump it up three brackets to get you into the reaches of prison. It may be enough to mean that you’re going to be sentenced towards the top end of the bracket of a 16 month disqualification rather than 12, but you wouldn’t receive a prison sentence unless they have charged you separately for the crash.


Outcome: This lady pleaded guilty and received a 14-month ban with the course to reduce that by one quarter, together with a financial penalty. She was very relieved not to end up in prison.


69


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76