News

Carl Millar, Head of Department, recently defended a gentleman at City of London Magistrates Court in respect of an allegation of driving without due care and attention. This offence carries obligatory endorsable points between 3 – 9. The obvious concern for the defendant would be that he would be given 6 penalty points, which, as he currently had 6 points already, would take him up to 12 penalty points. At 12 penalty points, a defendant faces disqualification under the “totting up” procedure for a minimum disqualification period of 6 months. The facts of the case were that the defendant was driving his taxi, which was involved in a collision with a motor cyclist. Unfortunately, the motor cyclist did suffer quite severe injuries which could be interpreted as an aggravating feature when the matter came for sentencing. Mr Millar persuaded the court that the defendant’s level of culpability was at the lower end of the scale and the court applied their discretion to impose the minimum amount of penalty points, which was three points in this case.

Cunninghams Solicitors also had a recent success with a gentleman who was disqualified for driving with excess alcohol for a period of 23 months. This, in our view was excessive and we made an application, out of time, to have the matter heard at the Crown Court. In normal circumstances, a defendant only has 21 days in which to appeal against conviction or sentence. In the defendant’s case, it was almost a year since his conviction and sentence and therefore this was a difficult hurdle to overcome. We were successful in overcoming this first hurdle and the Defendant’s period of disqualification was also substantially reduced from 23 months to 13 months.

We also recently represented another gentleman in respect of an allegation of driving with excess alcohol. It is a mandatory condition that a defendant must be given a warning that he will be prosecuted for failing to provide a specimen of breath, which is a separate offence, should he refuse to provide, or be incapable of providing a sample of breath, without reasonable excuse. In this particular case, the defendant was adamant that he was not given the required warning. This evidence was not adduced by the prosecution as part of their case and as such, the defendant was acquitted. The defendant was also awarded a Defendant’s Costs Order, so that the fees paid by him to this firm can be reimbursed by the court.