Cunninghams put forward mitigation on behalf of Mrs H that a period of disqualification would cause her and her family exceptional hardship.  It was argued that Mrs H would be unable to get to work or, indeed, fulfil the duties and responsibilities that she was required to do at work.  Mrs H is a dual qualified social worker and regional health visitor and she simply would not have been able to do her job without a driving licence.  This would have had an effect upon her patients and the National Health Service trust.  Ultimately, the Court were persuaded that this would cause her, her employer and her family exceptional hardship and the Court decided not to disqualify Mrs H in the circumstances.  Obviously, Mrs H was delighted with the outcome.

Mr F had provided two specimens of breath and, due to the level of reading, was supposed to be given the statutory option by the police, so that he could exercise his right to have the specimens of breath replaced with a sample of blood.  However, the clients’ instructions were that he felt compelled to provide a sample of blood, as opposed to be given the statutory option.

Mr F’s defence was presented to the Court.  The prosecution did not have any evidence from the doctor that Mr F had consented to provide a sample of blood.  In such circumstances, our Mr Millar was able to persuade the prosecutor to discontinue the case against Mr F due to a lack of evidence.  Obviously, Mr F was delighted with the outcome and was awarded a defence costs order, which will result in him receiving reimbursement of his fees.

Cunninghams were able to persuade the Magistrates not to impose the minimum six month ban, as we demonstrated to the Magistrates that Mrs L would suffer exceptional hardship were she to lose her driving licence for any period.  The Magistrates duly accepted our exceptional hardship argument and Mrs L was therefore able to retain her licence.

Mr F provided one sample of urine and was told to stem the flow before immediately providing another sample of urine.  This is in breach of Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, whereby a defendant is required to provide two specimens of urine within one hour of the request.  The first sample should be discarded.

The prosecution withdrew the case against the defendant and no evidence was offered.  The result is that the defendant will now be entitled to a defendants’ costs order whereby he should receive reimbursement in respect of the fees paid to Messrs Cunninghams Solicitors to represent him.

We will always strive to find any defence whereby there has been an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.  On this particular occasion, there was a clear breach of the procedure.

More recently, Carl has represented clients in relation to driving with excess alcohol / urine cases in Port Talbot, Goole, Birmingham, Leeds and London.

After long negotiations, we were able to persuade the prosecution to discontinue the case against Mr E as a result of a breach of procedure.  Mr E was required to provide a sample of urine in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988.

One sample of urine should be provided and discarded, and then a second sample of urine should be provided and it is this second sample that can be accurately analysed.  In Mr E’s case, he only provided one sample of urine and this was a clear breach of the procedure.  It was necessary to instruct a forensic expert in the case and it was also necessary to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service that there would be limited prospects of the Crown proving the case against the defendant beyond any reasonable doubt.  Two samples of urine must be provided and if only one sample of urine is provided then this is a fundamental breach of the procedures.  As a result of the defendants’ case being discontinued by the prosecution, he is entitled to a defendants’ costs order to obtain reimbursement of his fees.

Mr C had accumulated 12 penalty points as a result of 4 minor motoring offences that were endorsed on his licence within a 3 year period. Exceptional hardship was presented and Carl was able to persuade the magistrates not to impose any period of disqualification. Mr C is involved in the sales industry and his inability to be mobile in his car would have resulted in his contract of employment being terminated. Furthermore, it was argued that it would be difficult for Mr C to obtain employment in the future, even after the expiry of his disqualification period of 6 months. If the Court were unable to find exceptional hardship, then the minimum period of disqualification is 6 months. It was also argued that his employers would suffer as Mr C attracted most of the business to his workplace, and the ramifications could have resulted in redundancies within the workplace. Thankfully, the Magistrates were persuaded by this powerful mitigation and Mr C was not disqualified at all.

Carl Millar was able to persuade the Magistrates to disqualify him for the offence alone. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Magistrates Court Guidelines go up to speeds of 110mph and Mr M was off the scale. The Magistrates were persuaded to disqualify him for the offence alone and disqualified him for a period of 35 days. The sentence was a better outcome than receiving 6 penalty points and then facing a possible 6 months disqualification under the toting up procedure.

He instructed Cunninghams Solicitors to deal with the appeal at Derby Crown Court. The Court were minded to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Magistrates and reduced the disqualification period down from six months to three months. The Court were persuaded by the fact that Mr D’s business was in a difficult state and that he played a vital role in that business amongst other matters.