KNOW YOUR RIGHTS CASE 3 - THE FACTS
Before deciding to instruct Patterson Law, Mr X was asked to attend the police station under suspicion of dangerous driving after an alleged road rage incident. It was at this police interview that Mr X admitted he was indeed driving at the time of the incident, but he denied the conduct described.
Whilst this was being progressed by the “right arm” of the police, the “left arm” simultaneously sent him a Notice of Intended Prosecution together with a request for driver information under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988, asking him to provide the identity of the driver. This was, of course, the same piece of information that was being requested (and was supplied) within the station interview.
During the interview, it became apparent that no offence had been committed, and the officers rightly informed Mr X that he would not be charged for any offence. Unfortunately, the right arm was not speaking to the left arm, and the s.172 request for more information was progressed as normal, regardless of the matter having concluded after Mr X’s interview.
The officers responsible for the investigation at the station had forgotten to place the blocks on the progression of the s.172 notice. This meant that Mr X was charged to court for failure to respond to that document, even though he had provided the same information at the police station.
The original advice
Initially the advice to plead guilty was based on the fact that he was written to asking him to provide the requested information and he had not responded. Therefore, on the face of it, he was guilty of failing to provide driver information as he had not responded at all.
It was at this point that he sought help from Patterson Law. The outcome
The CPS were contacted and an abuse of process was raised. It was both legally and morally wrong for the client to have been told that he did nothing wrong, he could move on with his life - whist simultaneously being processed to court for failing to provide information. Abuses of process like this happen more commonly than is known and this incident proves that police practice should always be held to account.
The CPS saw reason with the argument before trial and therefore the case was discontinued, with costs awarded in our client’s favour.
PHTM FEBRUARY 2023 CASE 4 - THE FACTS
Mr and Mrs M were driving home in convoy (in separate cars). At one point in the journey, an unknown driver (we will call him Mr Z) started tailgating Mrs M and flashing her to get out of the way. Being very intimidated, Mrs M moved over, but swore at Mr Z as he drove past. In retaliation, Mr Z swore back and continued to intimidate her by brake checking.
Mr M saw all of this from his car and to tried to discourage it and protect his wife so he drove alongside Mr Z and held his phone up to the window, gesturing as if to say he was filming the whole thing.
Mr Z however had other ideas. He took a photo of Mr M holding up his phone and gave it to the police, reporting him for driving whilst using a mobile phone!
The original advice
At the police interview, he was advised to plead guilty. It was based on the fact that the prosecution had a clear picture of him holding a telephone in his hand as if he was using it, and that was concrete evidence that he was driving whilst using his phone.
The outcome
Mr M instructed Patterson Law to represent him at court. Our defence was that they had no evidence that he was using his phone. It is only an offence to use a phone whilst driving and whilst he was gesturing as if he was using the phone, that it was not conclusive proof that he actually was using it. All the prosecution had was a photo of him holding the phone but no evidence of use. The case was dropped prior to court on that basis.
CONCLUSION
We do not think that people should plead not guilty for the sake of it, nor should they enter not guilty pleas if they do not have a defence. There is a risk in pleading not guilty, in that if unsuccessful at trial the defendant will incur increased costs and potentially harsher sentences. However, these cases highlight the importance of getting expert legal advice from traffic specialists who know the area of law well before entering a plea.
If you need advice on motoring matters then please email
e.patterson@
pattersonlaw.co.uk or call us on 01626 359800 for free legal advice.
77
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
