The effect of a 6 month disqualification for totting up was going to have disastrous effects for Mr Haynes in terms of his employment and home life.

After considering his options, Mr Haynes contacted Cunninghams Draycott Browne Solicitors and spoke to solicitor Paul Turner. Mr Haynes explained how he did not feel that he was able to put all his grounds forward properly in relation to an exceptional hardship argument as he found himself in an alien environment, in that he had never appeared before a Court previously.

Paul considered Mr Haynes’s case and advised him that he had a strong case and that there were merits in an appeal to the Crown Court.

Due to the speed that Mr Haynes had been caught travelling, Paul advised Mr Haynes that we would seek to persuade the Court to impose a short period of disqualification as opposed to the imposing penalty points if the Court had insisted on imposing the penalty points then Mr Haynes could advance his exceptional hardship argument.

At the hearing before Kingston Crown Court, strong mitigation was advanced on behalf of Mr Haynes and the Court were persuaded to impose a short period of disqualification of 14 days and therefore the penalty points were removed from Mr Haynes’ licence .

Needless to say, Mr Haynes was delighted with the outcome.

Carl Millar recently represented Mr B at Manchester City Magistrates Court in respect of an allegation of speeding. At the time of the offence Mr B had 9 penalty points endorsed on his licence and therefore faced disqualification under the totting up procedure.

Carl presented powerful mitigation on behalf of Mr B in order to try and persuade the Magistrates not to disqualify Mr B from driving for the minimum period of 6 months.

Carl was trying to compete with his colleague, Paul Turner, at Cunninghams Draycott Browne Solicitors who had a hat trick of successes in London, Oxfordshire and Manchester outlined in his article of the 18^th February 2013.

In Mr B’s case, he was concerned that not having a car as a mode of transport for a period of 6 months would result in redundancies at his workplace. He accepted that it was not his employee’s fault that his manner of driving was unacceptable and the Magistrates were persuaded on the balance of probabilities that exceptional hardship would fall upon Mr B and his employees.

Cunninghams Draycott Browne Solicitors represent clients on a nationwide basis including London, Birmingham and Manchester.

The Courts are more willing to accept exceptional hardship if other people are affected by you being disqualified from driving. In Mr B’s case, the Court accepted that his employee’s would suffer if he were to be disqualified from driving as there was potential that he may have to make people redundant.

We will see how Carl manages in his trials the following week whereby he is due to appear at Tottenham Magistrates Court for a case of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis, Bury Magistrates Court for a case of careless driving and Portsmouth Magistrates Court in respect of an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.

Mr T had been summonsed to Bromley Magistrates Court, Kent for an offence of failing to furnish information.  The initial incident resulted from a speeding allegation when the prosecution sent Mr T a Notice of Intended Prosecution.  The Notice of Intended Prosecution, or NIP, requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to identify who was driving their car on a particular date, time and place.  Mr T never received the NIP at his address and when the police received no response from Mr T they summonsed him to Court for the more serious offence of failing to furnish information, which carries 6 penalty points.  The original speeding offence would only have resulted in a fixed penalty notice and 3 penalty points.  Mr T had a clean licence and therefore had no reason to ignore the NIP and contacted Cunninghams Solicitors soon after receiving the summons to Court.

Paul Turner advised Mr T that he had a defence to the allegation as if he had never received the NIP then he could not reasonably be expected to provide the police with the driver details.  Mr T had accepted all along that he was the driver at the particular time of the offence but had never physically received the request for information.  Paul corresponded with the Crown Prosecution Service on Mr T’s behalf and explained that Mr T fully accepted that he was the driver at the time and would have notified the police of this had he received the Notices, and Paul queried whether the CPS would be willing to accept a guilty plea to the original speeding offence and to discontinue the failing to furnish allegation.  The CPS refused to accept this alternative resolution to the matter and the case therefore proceeded to trial.

Paul represented Mr T at Bromley Magistrates Court when his trial in respect of the allegation of failing to furnish information was heard.  At the conclusion of the trial Mr T was found not guilty of the offence and the Court awarded a defendants’ costs order.  Mr T was delighted with the outcome and he also still has a clean driving licence.

If you find yourself summonsed to Court for an offence of failing to furnish information you should contact Cunninghams Solicitors and we will be able to advise you of your options.  We will always endeavour to have the matter dealt with without the need for the case proceeding to trial, but if the matter does go to trial we will provide you with excellent representation to achieve the best possible result to avoid you incurring penalty points and have you acquitted of the offence.

Mr P’s car was used by a client and was flashed for speeding.  Mr P received the Notice of Intended Prosecution which was sent back to the police.  Mr P was summonsed to Court as the police were not satisfied with the information that was provided.  Mr P instructed Paul at Cunninghams Solicitors to defend this matter.  Paul advised Mr P that he had complied with the legislation as much as he could and had provided the details that he had at the time the request for information was received.  Paul entered a not guilty plea on behalf of Mr P and the case was adjourned for trial at Bromley Magistrates Court, near London.  Paul made written representations on behalf of Mr P to the Crown Prosecution Service and demonstrated that Mr P could not have done anything more.  The representations were ultimately successful and the prosecution agreed to discontinue the case against Mr P and he no longer had to stand trial for the offence of failing to furnish information at Court.  An application for a defendants’ costs order was made to the Court and was granted.  Mr P was delighted with the outcome as it meant that he did not have to attend Court and as the allegation was discontinued, Mr P did not have any penalty points endorsed on his licence.

Paul advanced powerful mitigation on behalf of Mr T and reiterated the fact to the Magistrates that they should look at the offence in isolation, and not at the number of points already endorsed on a defendants’ licence.  Ultimately, Paul persuaded the Magistrates to sentence Mr T to a short period of disqualification of 14 days.  Mr T was delighted with the result.

The appeal took place before Doncaster Crown Court, South Yorkshire.  Doubt was created by us to ensure that the prosecution could not provide the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal was successful.

Mrs S’s conviction for speeding was quashed and following the successful appeal, the Court ordered a defendants’ costs order to be made.

We were able to persuade the Court who disqualified Mr K for a period of 21 days and fined him £545. When a Court imposes any period of disqualification they are unable to endorse penalty points.

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.