Recent Successes

Mr S was caught on the M66 driving at a speed of 97mph. A police vehicle had followed his vehicle and had a video recording for a distance of two miles. By challenging the procedures employed in calibrating the device used for recording speed, Tim was able to show that the Court could not rely on the reading from the device. Mr S was found not guilty after trial and received his full costs.

Mr M was summoned to court for failing to provide driver details at the Sheffield Magistrates Court. He was alleged to have been involved in an accident and when requested to give driver details, was alleged to have failed to respond to that request. Tim challenged the Crown on a legal and technical basis. The Crown were forced to discontinue the case as they could not show the original notice was served in accordance with the legislation.

Mr S was caught speeding on the M1 and subsequently summoned to the Luton Magistrates Court. During the trial, Tim challenged the admissibility of numerous pieces of evidence which had not been served correctly by the Crown. The Crown were forced to make a late application which was refused after being opposed by Tim. The Crown could not proceed as critical pieces of evidence were deemed inadmissible. Mr S was successful with his case.

Miss S was charged with driving with excess alcohol. She had provided an alcohol reading of five times the legal limit in breath. A conviction could have resulted in a custodial sentence and lengthy disqualification. Tim had the case dismissed on the basis that there was no case to answer. The Crown had failed to satisfy the Court that the Defendant was over the legal limit when she had driven the motor vehicle.

Mr A was stopped by the police after a Christmas party and was breathalysed by police. He passed the roadside breath test and the police then issued him with a fixed penalty for failing to wear his seatbelt. During trial, Tim cross-examined both police officers and demonstrated that the officers could not have seen what they had stated in their statements from the position they were parked. Mr A was found not guilty. He received his full costs.

Mr H was stopped by VOSA whilst driving a commercial vehicle. He was summoned to court for failing to drive with a tachograph and not having a speed limiter in operation on the vehicle. He was at risk of losing his commercial drivers license and therefore his livelihood. Tim was able to show that the VOSA roadside test on the speed limiter was unreliable as there was evidence of an electrical fault in the device. The Magistrates accepted at trial that the purpose of the job carried out by Mr H allowed him to fall under an EC exemption for use of a tachograph in that vehicle. He was found not guilty of both charges and kept his commercial license.

Miss L was charged with using a mobile telephone whilst driving on her way to work. Tim was able to demonstrate at trial that the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was using her phone. Information from the mobile phone company proved there were no incoming or outgoing calls on her phone, and cross-examination of the police officer revealed that he could not be certain from his position that she was indeed on her mobile phone. She received her full costs from the Court.