Cunninghams Solicitors

Exceptional Hardship following accumulation of 12 penalty points

admin — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:42:48 +0000

Carl recently represented Mr C at Liverpool Magistrates Court.

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.

Driving with Excess Alcohol – Case Discontinued

admin — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:26:25 +0000

Tom had been representing Mr E in relation to proceedings before Knowsley Magistrates Court, Liverpool for well over 12 months. Mr E was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and for a case to last this long is extremely rare. The reason for the significant delay in bringing the case to trial was that the prosecution continued to make applications to vacate on the basis that administrative errors within the Crown Prosecution Service had led to the Court listing the trial on dates inconvenient to the arresting officer. On the fifth application to vacate, Tom made strong representations to the Court that the matter should not be delayed further. The Court agreed and the prosecution were forced to discontinue the case against Mr E. He was also granted a defendants’ costs order.

Accused of Speeding in excess of 100mph

admin — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:22:13 +0000

Tom was recently instructed by Mr K who was charged with speeding and summonsed to appear before Bodmin Magistrates Court, Cornwall. Mr K was accused of travelling in excess of 100mph on a motorway. Regrettably, Mr K’s driving licence was already endorsed with 9 penalty points. One option available to Mr K was for us to justify to the Court a short period of disqualification and, thus, inviting the Court to impose such a penalty would have the advantage of avoiding a longer period of disqualification as a result of having more than 12 penalty points on his licence.

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.

Driving with Excess Alcohol

admin — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:21:03 +0000

Tom recently represented Mr R before Dagenham Magistrates Court in London. Mr R was charged with a single offence of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol. At first glance, the case against the defendant looked overwhelming and he was minded to enter a guilty plea. However, a technical flaw with the paperwork provided by the police was noted which gave rise to a not guilty plea being entered. Again, there were flaws in the way the Crown Prosecution Service prepared and presented the case at Court which ultimately led to the defendant being acquitted. As the defendant was acquitted, a defendants’ costs order was awarded which will entitle him to a full or partial reimbursement of his fees.

Driving with Excess Alcohol, Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Resisting Arrest, Assaulting a Police Officer

admin — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:17:11 +0000

Tom recently represented Mr D before Redhill Magistrates Court, Surrey. Mr D was charged with offences of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (75 in breath), driving without due care and attention, resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. Bearing in mind the relatively high reading and the fact that the allegation was that Mr D had assaulted a police officer in the execution of his duty, a short custodial sentence was a real possibility. Mr D only decided to plead guilty the evening before the trial and, as such, the credit the Court could afford to him for his guilty plea was somewhat diminished. Notwithstanding this and, hearing powerful mitigation put forward, the Magistrates imposed fines in respect of the assault matter and the excess alcohol matter. Tom was able to persuade the prosecution to drop the matters of resisting arrest and driving without due care and attention. Mr D even avoided any community based penalty.

Drink Driving

admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:41:54 +0000

Carl Millar represented Mr H at Stratford Magistrates Court in London in July 2010. Mr H was involved in an accident involving three vehicles, and when required to blow into the breathalyser device at the police station his lowest reading was at 53ųg in 100ml of breath. Mr H was advised that the Magistrates Court Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of between 12-16 months when the reading is between 36-59. On the face of it, Mr H was significantly closer to facing a 16 month period of disqualification and there was the additional aggravating feature in that he was involved in a serious accident. Powerful mitigation was presented by Carl on behalf of Mr H and he managed to convince the Court that the impact of disqualification would severely restrict Mr H in continuing to do his job without a car as a mode of transport. As such, Mr H was disqualified for the minimum period of 12 months, to be reduced to 9 months upon successful completion of the drink drivers’ rehabilitation course.

Failing to Furnish Information – Section 172 Request

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:39:02 +0000

Carl Millar recently represented Mr W at Tameside Magistrates Court in relation to an allegation of failing to furnish information.

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.

Driving Without Due Care and Attention (Careless Driving)

admin — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:37:05 +0000

Cunninghams recently acted for Mr R before Manchester City Magistrates Court in relation to various offences including driving without due care and attention (careless driving), driving a motor vehicle in a dangerous condition, driving with no licence and having defective tyres. This was a tragic case whereby an accident had occurred involving two cars. Mr R suffered serious damage to his vehicle and, sadly, a young child passenger in the other vehicle suffered serious injuries. Obviously, the allegation of driving without due care and attention was the most serious of the allegations and, if convicted, Mr R would inevitably have been disqualified from driving for a significant period. This would have had a drastic impact upon his life as he is a self employed painter and decorator. Cunninghams utilised the services of a road accident specialist who produced an experts’ report that was imperative to providing substantial evidence which cast doubt upon the prosecution evidence. Following legal arguments and the submission of the experts’ report, the Crown discontinued the serious allegation of driving without due care and attention and eventually accepted a plea to driving a motor vehicle with a defective tyre. The defendant was punished by way of a 3 point penalty endorsed on his licence.

Cunninghams to be a recommended firm in the forthcoming edition of Chambers & Partners 2011

admin — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:31:23 +0000

David Caplin, Partner at Cunninghams, will be recognised as a leader in his field and Cunninghams will be a recommended firm in the forthcoming edition of Chambers & Partners 2011.

Speeding

admin — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:59:02 +0000

Carl Millar represented Mr M at Worcester Magistrates Court in May 2010. Mr M was accused of speeding at 111mph on the motorway. The Magistrates Court Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of between 7-56 days or endorsement of 6 penalty points on the defendant’s licence. In this particular case, Mr M already had 6 endorsable penalty points. The danger was that he would receive a further 6 points and accumulate 12 penalty points which means that he would face disqualification under the totting up procedure.

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.