KNOW YOUR RIGHTS


l Restrictions on carrying young passengers at night - designed to reduce risk-taking behaviour and distraction.


l R plates being displayed for 24 months after passing.


These restrictions apply both before passing the test and for the first two years afterwards. Breaching them can result in three penalty points and a significant fine.


Although the scheme is currently limited to Northern Ireland, it is widely expected to be the start of a UK wide rollout. Young drivers - and parents - should keep a close eye on developments, as these rules will almost certainly become part of the licensing system in England, Scotland and Wales in the near future.


The A20 Sidcup speed limit controversy


Drivers in the South East will almost certainly have seen recent coverage about the A20 in Sidcup, where a motorist has reportedly become the first person to overturn a speeding conviction linked to the temporary 40mph limit imposed in 2024. The headlines have suggested tens of thousands - perhaps even hundreds of thousands - of drivers could now have their cases overturned. As ever, the reality is more complicated.


To recap: in 2023, an emergency traffic order was introduced to reduce the speed limit on the A20 from 70mph to 40mph. Cameras were activated shortly afterwards, and within the first six weeks alone around 60,000 drivers were recorded exceeding the new limit. The story quickly became national news. Facebook groups formed, drivers shared experiences, and many attempted to challenge their cases. On the whole, these challenges were unsuccessful, and a significant number of motorists received points, fines, and in some cases disqualifications.


The recent news reports focus on one driver who has succeeded in overturning his conviction. The key point - which the articles often gloss over - is that he is not the first person to win a case, but he is the first to obtain a written Crown Court judgment stating that the temporary speed limit was unlawful. Crucially, the judge’s ruling was based on administrative grounds relating to how the order was implemented. It was not a finding that the cameras were faulty nor that the signage was inadequate – so there’s no automatic right to have a conviction overturned due to inaccuracy. And on top of that, a Crown Court judgment does not create a binding precedent, meaning other Courts are not bound to follow it.


PHTM NOVEMBER 2026


Adding to this, both Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police have publicly stated that they are not changing their position. They maintain that the temporary limit was lawfully imposed, and they intend to continue enforcing the convictions already handed down. In other words, despite the headlines, there is no automatic overturn and no immediate change in policy.


For drivers who have already been convicted, there are only two realistic routes forward. The first is a High Court appeal. If a driver who has lost their case appeals to the High Court, that ruling would create a binding precedent. That is the only legal mechanism capable of forcing wider change. The only other option is political pressure; to continue lobbying TfL and local authorities in the hope that they voluntarily review or revoke the convictions. This is a political route, not a legal one, and there is no guarantee it will succeed.


High profile disqualifications


Finally, a couple of footballers have also made headlines recently after receiving driving dis- qualifications. Notably, Mohamed Salah has received a disqualification, and Morgan Gibbs White is reported to be at risk of one.


Footballers being banned is not necessarily uncommon, but a question that arose was why these players did not have to attend court in person.


Attendance depends on the nature of the case and what the driver intends to do. If a driver wants to argue exceptional hardship to avoid disqualification, they must attend. In cases such as drink driving, attendance is also mandatory.


However, if a driver is simply accepting the disqualification and not contesting it, they may request that the court excuse their attendance. Courts can sometimes agree to proceed in their absence if the outcome is not being challenged.


If you need any advice on motoring matters, then please send us an email to: advice@pattersonlaw.co.uk or call 01626 359800 for free legal advice.


75


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  |  Page 81  |  Page 82