Forrest Williams - 24 Hour Motoring Lawyers - page 21 Motoring Advice Blog - Page 21 of 82 - Forrest Williams

Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Motoring Advice Blog

Case Study: Driver Caught Speeding At 110mph in 70mph Avoids Ban

Case Study: Driver Caught Speeding At 110mph in 70mph Avoids Ban

 

The relief that Anya Holmes experienced immediately after her hearing at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court was not for herself. Anya had been at pains to explain to her case handler at Forrest Williams that she was most concerned about the effect a disqualification would have on her young daughter, who was very ill and needed ongoing, regular medical attention.

 

Anya did not dispute that she had been speeding on the date in question but explained that she was conscious of running late for work, knowing the company she was temporarily employed by had a harsh late arrival policy.

 

Her recorded speed of 110mph in a 70mph zone was at the very top of the third (most serious) category, so punishable by way of a fine and either a short disqualification of 7-56 days or 6 penalty points.

 

Although Anya was proud of her clean driving licence, she realised that to accept the court’s preferred penalty of a disqualification would mean that she would struggle to take her daughter to hospital at short notice, as and when needed. (Her daughter’s illness meant regular and often unpredictable visits to both the GP surgery and the local hospital.)

 

During the hearing, Anya’s barrister mitigated forcefully on her behalf, detailing the severe medical problems her daughter had encountered so far in her young life, including a cardiac arrest followed by a medically-induced coma which resulted in a brain injury.

 

Whilst the magistrates could not condone speeding, they were minded to award 6 points and a financial penalty instead of a disqualification, due to the impact the latter would have on her daughter.

 

Anya told us that she had learned a valuable lesson, and that she will be mindful of her speed in future. She was grateful to the court for taking her personal circumstances into consideration and told Forrest Williams that she would not have been able to speak up for herself in the way her barrister did during the hearing. Anya felt that her instruction had been money well spent, as she achieved her preferred outcome and felt fully supported throughout the period leading up to – and including – her court hearing.

 

If you have been charged with speeding, call our expert team on 01623 397200 for a free review of your case.

I Have Received A Notice of Intended Prosecution – What Should I Do?

I have received a Notice of Intended Prosecution. What do I have to do next?

 

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act is aimed at forcing individuals (whether they are the registered keeper on the V5 document, or the driver of the vehicle on the date in question) to provide the identity of the driver at the time of an alleged road traffic offence.

 

The legislation was introduced as many traffic offences are detected by un-manned devices, or identified by officers who do not actually speak to the driver. For this reason, it was accepted that the police needed to have a way to force individuals to provide driver details, if they were able to do this. 

 

A notice of intended prosecution (known as a NIP, or a S172 notice) is served on a person, either verbally at the time if they are stopped by police, or soon after an alleged offence has been committed, to make them aware that they may be prosecuted.

 

Receiving a NIP does not mean that you will definitely (or automatically) be prosecuted, but it acts as a warning that this may happen.

 

Nominating yourself – or another person – as the driver at the time of an alleged offence is not an admission of guilt. If a person is charged, they have the right to defend the charge in the usual way. 

 

The NIP has to be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the offence, otherwise the matter would not be able to proceed at court.

 

If the driver’s identity is not known, then the NIP is sent to the registered keeper. Whether the NIP is sent to the driver or the registered keeper, as long as the form is sent out within 14 days then it is valid.

 

If the registered keeper has changed their address, or not informed DVLA about a change of circumstances, etc, then as long as the NIP arrived at the address on record for the registered keeper within 14 days it is still valid. The registered keeper then has a legal obligation to do everything within their power to identify the driver.

 

The driver may receive further paperwork in due course, but this should not be confused with the NIP, which is legally required to be sent within 14 days.

 

NIPs can, as mentioned, be issued verbally to the driver at the time of the offence, or, alternatively, you could receive a court summons through the post for the alleged offence within the 14 days.

 

Small errors on the NIP do not render it invalid, unless such mistakes would mislead the potential defendant.

 

A NIP shall be deemed to have been served on a person if it was posted to her/him at their last known address, even if the NIP was returned as undelivered, or was for any other reason not received by her/him. The posted NIP is deemed to be served until the contrary is shown.

 

It is important that the NIP/S172 notice is completed and returned within the 28 day time limit, even if the form arrives outside of its own 14 day time limit. If the boxes on the form do not allow you to give an appropriate response, you should complete the form as far as you can and attach a covering letter before returning it.

 

If you were not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, you should name the driver if you can. If there are several possible drivers, you should name them all and give contact details. If you are unable to name the driver, you should explain why (ie detail what checks you have made).

 

As many of the completed forms appear to go missing in the post, it is best to copy the completed form for your records, and then return by recorded delivery to ensure it is received.

 

You may then hear nothing more about the alleged offence or receive either a conditional offer of fixed penalty or a summons to court, depending on the nature of the alleged offence and the number of points on your driving licence at the time.

 

If you do not complete and return the NIP/S172 notice correctly within the 28 day time limit, you face a separate charge of failing to notify driver’s details, which is a 6 penalty point offence with a fine of up to £1,000.  For this reason, it is best to seek legal advice before completing a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

 

Forrest Williams offer a fixed fee service whereby we review your situation and guide you through correct completion of the Notice of Intended Prosecution.

 

If you have been charged with failing to notify driver’s details, please contact us on 01623 397200 so we can offer you free advice.  

 

 

 

 

Case Study: Speeding Client Avoids Ban

Kira Donaghue was expecting to be disqualified for up to 56 days at Mansfield Magistrates’ Court this week, and had travelled to her hearing by public transport, in readiness for this ban (which she knew would take immediate effect).

Kira had been charged with a speeding offence – 56 mph in a 30 mph zone – but she had an unusual explanation when she first contacted Forrest Williams for help. It was not something we had heard before, but we listened carefully and quickly realised that Kira was not simply trying to excuse her unlawful behaviour, as people might expect.

Shortly before the speeding offence took place, Kira told us that she had been given a new company car, which was an Audi. Prior to this she had been driving a much older Ford.

Whilst Kira accepted that there would be a period of adjustment from one car to the other, she soon became concerned about the speedometer display in the new Audi. Due to its design, it was very difficult to accurately read what speed she was travelling at.

After the speeding offence, Kira – who had maintained a clean driving licence for over 25 years – started to do some research online. She was shocked to discover that other drivers had also been having problems with the speedometer display of the new Audi, and that the design problem had been acknowledged by the manufacturers.

After some investigation, Kira discovered how to set a digital speedometer on the dashboard, which was much easier to read whilst driving.

Following the advice and support of her case handler, Kira came to court with documentary evidence of the Audi’s speedometer problem.

She was represented at the hearing by an experienced motoring law barrister, who advanced mitigation and ensured that each magistrate had a copy of the paperwork to refer to.

It was clear that Kira had the sympathy and understanding of the bench, from the comments that were made.

The magistrates were minded to sentence Kira by way of a fine and 6 penalty points, which means she can continue to drive as before without disruption to her work and other commitments.

Kira told Forrest Williams she was delighted with this outcome, as she had been dreading a disqualification of almost 3 months’ duration.

She told her case handler that she had felt fully supported throughout the period of preparing her case for court, and thanked Forrest Williams and her barrister for their hard work, which had led to this much-appreciated result.   

If you have been charged with speeding or any other motoring offence, contact Forrest Williams now to get the experts on your side.  Call us now on 01623 397200.

 

Forrest Williams TV