We wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service highlighting the strengths in Mr P’s case, and the Crown Prosecution Service were ultimately persuaded to withdraw the proceedings against Mr P without the need for Mr P to attend at Court.

We duly wrote to the Court to request a defendants’ costs order which was granted by the Court.

Paul had previously instructed Mrs A that she had a strong defence.  Mrs A was at risk of a disqualification as the offence of failing to furnish information carries a 6 point penalty.  As she had two allegations of failing to furnish information against her, the risk was that she would be disqualified under the totting up procedure for accumulating 12 points or more.

Prior to the trial, Paul discussed the case with the prosecutor who insisted that the trial must proceed.  At the trial Paul used his strong advocacy skills to present Mrs A’s case and was able to persuade the Court that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt.  Mrs A was found not guilty in respect of both offences and the Court awarded a defendants’ costs order.

Carl was able to persuade the prosecutor to discontinue the matter on the basis that the defendant accepted a guilty plea for the originating offence of not complying with a traffic light signal.  The advantage of this was that the defendant only received 3 penalty points and a £60 fine whereas 6 penalty points would have been endorsed on his licence and there would have been a much higher fine had he been convicted of failing to furnish information.