All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

If you are over 17 years of age, the easiest answer to the question ‘will my name appear in the press?’ is that yes, it could. These days, press reporting via social media can happen very quickly.  It is often one of the things not thought about by those facing criminal proceedings.

Proceedings before the Youth Court

Anyone aged 17 or under will generally first appear in the Youth Court. There are strict rules that prevent the publication of the name, address, school or any other matter likely to identify a person under 18 who is a victim, witness or defendant in a youth court.

This restriction can be lifted in certain circumstances.  If you instruct is then we will be able to advise you and oppose any such application on your behalf if appropriate.  If a youth appears in an adult court the prosecutor will apply for an order to prevent the naming of a youth.

In civil proceedings,however, such as in applications for anti-social behaviour injunctions, reporting restrictions do not apply.

Can I receive anonymity or will my name appear in the press?

There is an automatic reporting restriction that prevents the identification of any teacher who is alleged by a pupil at the same school to have committed a criminal offence against the pupil. This restriction ends when the teacher is charged or summonsed to court and can be varied or lifted.

Victims of sexual offences and a limited number of other offences have lifetime anonymity.  In these cases the answer to the question ‘will my name appear in the press?’ is no.

Reports of certain hearings at court may only include the name of the defendant and the offences he faces. This includes allocation and sending hearings in the Magistrates’ Court and preparatory and pre-trial hearings in the Crown Court.

Once a trial is underway, you should expect to see reports of the entire proceedings, unless a Judge orders otherwise.  Of course, whether of not the case is reported may well depend on the nature of the case and the competition for other stories in the media at that time.

Discretionary reporting restrictions

Although an application may be made to restrict reporting of a defendant’s name any discretion has to be considered with care.  Such restrictions are not common in court proceedings.

An example of where an application may be appropriate is for a defendant who is in the witness protection programme.  This has been used recently in relation to John Venables, the killer of James Bulger.

For proceedings that are not in the youth court, there is a discretion to impose reporting restrictions in respect of a victim, witness or defendant under the age of 18. The court would need to be satisfied that the welfare of the child outweighed the strong public interest in open justice. There is a similar discretion for adult witnesses if their evidence would suffer if they were named as a witness.

Will the press be in Court?

Members of the press can sit in on hearings in any court, including the youth court, unless they are specifically excluded.  Such a course would only be in rare and particular circumstances.

The general principle is that justice should be open and administered in public. Even if the press is not present, this does not mean that your case will not be reported.

Local reporters sell stories to other newspapers, so do not assume that just because you appear before a court away from where you live, your own local press will not be aware of it.

How we can assist

The law in respect of reporting restrictions is complicated, and breach of a restriction is a criminal offence for individuals as well as members of the press. This article is intended to give only a very brief overview of the issues involved.

Press reporting is one of the issues that you need to consider early on in the criminal process, particularly if your case is likely to attract publicity.

You will need to consider the effect that the proceedings may have on others, particularly children, and how you might deal with that.

If you need any advice answering the question ‘will my name appear in the press’ or if you have any concerns or simply want to discuss any aspect of your case please contact your most convenient office.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

It may be an offence to fail to provide information as the identity of a driver when you receive a written request for driver information from (or on behalf of) the police. If you are convicted then you face a hefty fine as well as 6 penalty points.

How long do they have to make the request?

 Any request for driver information must normally be served within 14 days of the offence being committed. There is case law, for example,  where because of a  postal strike delivery of the request for driver information was delayed beyond the 14 days an offence had not been committed where there was a failure to respond.

If you receive a request for driver information and have any doubt as to whether the notice was served within the requisite period then please contact us immediately for further advice.  For example, in some circumstances, a valid request can be made after the 14 day period.  Do not ignore a request simply because you believe it to be out of time – always seek urgent legal advice from one of our motoring solicitors before you make any decision.

How long do I have to reply?

 From the date the notice is served you have 28 days to reply, or “as soon as practicably after the end of that period”.

Is there a right against self-incrimination

 A number of case have dealt with this issue.  Simply put, it doesn’t matter.  The requirement to identify the driver does not affect your human rights. The court has said “those who choose to keep and drive a car can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities.”

Those responsibilities include the obligation to provide information upon request as to the driver of the vehicle on any occasion.

What if I really don’t know who was driving?

If you genuinely do not know who was driving it may be that you have a defence to an allegation of failing to answer a request for driver information.

The defence is that you “could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was”.  As a result, for this defence to succeed, you will have needed to make all reasonable enquiries to find out who the driver was.  You will also need to reply to the request, providing what assistance you can.

In such circumstances it is best to seek early legal advice.  A recent case involving the former politician Lord Howard, has opened up a number of interesting legal arguments.

I did not receive the request for driver information and now I have been summonsed. What do I do?

You may have a defence to the allegation. Please contact a motoring law solicitor at your nearest office for further advice.

What if I provide false information?

It can be tempting to name a spouse, or even someone abroad, in the hope of avoiding penalty points. To do so would amount to the offence of perverting the course of justice.  This will almost always result in an immediate prison sentence.

We have provided more information about this here.

Companies

 It will be a defence for a company to show that there was no record kept of the driver and that this failure to keep a record was reasonable. The notice can be served by sending it to a secretary or a clerk, at the registered or principal office.

Although It may seem obvious, a company cannot be given penalty points.  As a result, any penalty would be limited to a fine.

In certain circumstances proceedings can also be brought against company directors.  As a result a company cannot be used as a shield against prosecution for this offence. If your company operates a company car pool it would be wise to ensure that you have robust procedures in place in order to track vehicle usage or run the risk of a conviction for failure to answer a request for driver information.

Will I be entitled to Legal aid to defend this case?

Public funding may be available do defend any court proceedings, so if you have received a court date then please contact one of our expert road traffic lawyers for further information.

You can find out more information about legal aid here.

How our expert motoring law solicitors can assist

The law concerning a request for driver information can be complicated. This article is intended to give only a very brief overview of the issues involved.  As a result, if you have any concerns or simply to discuss any aspect of your case please contact your nearest offices.

Details can be found here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

There is a specific offence of dangerous driving, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 2 years.  If that driving is a cause of someone’s death, that maximum sentence unsurprisingly increases to one of 14 years.  A more recent offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving was created in 2012 and carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison.

In each case there are minimum disqualification periods and very lengthy actual disqualifications which involve the passing of a mandatory re-test before a driver can return to the road.  Insurance premiums which will remain significant for many years to come, with some drivers unable to secure insurance at all, at any price.

What is dangerous driving?

Dangerous driving is defined by section 2A Road Traffic Act 1988:

“…a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—

(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”

There is also a further element of dangerous driving related to unsafe vehicles, although this is not within the scope of this article.

The test is an ‘objective one’ which means that it is not to be judged through the eyes of the actual driver but the eyes of a ‘competent and careful driver’.  As a result it, in any trial, it will be for a magistrate, District Judge or jury to decide on guilt.

The crucial part of the test is that the driving falls ‘far below’ the standard expected.  It is this aspect of the offence that, on occasion, makes advising in these cases such a highly skilled task.

In some cases it will be immediately obvious that the driving falls ‘far below’ the standard of a competent and careful driver.  For example, if a person is driving at 100 mph on the wrong carriageway of the motorway at night without lights, then there is no room for debate.

But some case are more difficult.  What if, believing that you have sufficient sight of the road ahead, you overtake only to hit an oncoming vehicle in the opposite lane. Would that fall into the category of driving ‘far below’ the standard, or it is simply an unfortunate error of judgement, and one that could perhaps be properly categorised as careless rather than dangerous driving?

No statutory definition exists of driving falling ‘far below’

There is no statutory definition of what is meant by ‘far below.’  Section 2A(3) of the 1988 Act states that “dangerous” must refer to the danger of personal injury or serious damage to property.

Case law also makes it clear that the driver’s particular skill or lack of is not relevant as set out in Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571.

A full exploration of the circumstances of the alleged offence will be required in borderline cases.  The Crown Prosecution Service regards the following as being examples of dangerous driving:

• racing or competitive driving;
• failing to have proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;
• speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
• aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
• disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
• disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
• overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
• driving when knowingly suffering from a medical or physical condition that significantly and dangerously impairs the offender’s driving skills such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight. It can include the failure to take prescribed medication;
• driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
• driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded;
• using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment whether as a phone or to compose or read text messages when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use (R v Browning (2001) EWCA Crim 1831, R v Payne [2007] EWCA Crim 157);
• driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment;
• a brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous even for only a short time. Cases that illustrate this principle include where an offender failed to stop at a junction where there was a give way sign, failing to see a taxi that was being driven across the junction perfectly properly and colliding with it; offender unintentionally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake; offender drove across a junction marked by a give way sign and collided with a car that was being driven along the major road and had no explanation for his failure to see the other car.

It should be stressed, however, that ultimately it will be a matter for the court to decide.

Cases of dangerous driving less than clear cut

Some of the examples in the above list may seem surprising, for example where a person unintentionally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake.  It is worth repeating that much will depend on what actually happened.  Argument may well be possible around concepts such as ‘…even for only a short time…’ 

Similarly, argument can be raised about when a breach of a legal duty in ‘…failing to have proper and safe regard…’ strays over the line from being careless driving to an incident of dangerous driving?

A lawyer will need to try and dilute the very real risk of judging everything from the perspective of hindsight and the outcome of the driving.

Legal strategies to defend dangerous driving cases

In stressful situations, particularly where serious harm has been caused, there is an instinctive reaction to think that the driving error must also have been very serious.

Standing back, as lawyers, we know that the truth is that on occasion even the slightest error can result in very serious consequences. It is therefore vital that if you are to be interviewed by the police following an accident that you secure legal representation at the outset.

All of our legal advice and assistance at a police station or any other place will be free of charge to you as a suspect regardless of your financial means.  You can read more about the help we can give here.  The scheme also operates if you are not under arrest but being spoken to on a voluntary basis.  This does not mean that the police are treating the allegation any less seriously and more information can be found here.

Accident investigation and reconstruction is now an important consideration in many cases.  This allows scientists and engineers to see exactly the cause(s) of an accident and the magnitude of error, often exposing the culpability of others.  Such reports can be expensive, but help will be available if you are eligible for either Magistrates or Crown Court legal aid.

Eye-witness testimony is not always reliable and is also often tainted by the result of the driving as opposed to the driving itself.  This will need to be exposed through expert cross examination of the witnesses in court.

In some cases there may still be some room for manoeuvre and a plea to the lesser offence of careless driving may be appropriate.

How we can assist you if you face dangerous driving allegations

Whether an act of driving amounts to dangerous driving is often not easy to ascertain.  Our experienced lawyers routinely deal with all manner of driving cases, from the minor to the most serious.

Whether facing imprisonment or not, the loss of a driving licence is for many people an incredibly serious penalty in itself.  We will take all steps possible on your behalf to avoid that happening.

We have six offices across the East Midlands and provide advice and provide nationwide advice and representation.  Find your nearest office here.  Alternatively use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

On 26 March 2018 the Charter for Justice was launched by the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA) together with the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA).

In combination with other initiatives such as the one that can be read about here,  the aim is to set out clearly the key principles needed to ensure a fair and properly functioning Justice system.

The Charter was produced following engagement with the CBA, CLSA and the Howard League for Penal Reform.  It is hoped that the Charter become a living, changing entity like the law itself, and is influenced by those who care about justice.

The launch took place at the Law Society on 26th March.  A panel of speakers, chaired by Greg Foxmith, addressed those attending on a number of issues.

• CBA chair Angela Rafferty QC spoke on funding issues and access to justice
• Laura Jane from the Howard League addressed the prison and probation crisis.
• Raj Chada talked tackling discrimination and prejudice at the police stations and in court.
• Jerry Hayes addressed ongoing issues with disclosure.
• Penelope Gibbs from Transform Justice discussed ideas of Open Justice.

The contents of the Charter for Justice are set out below:

Charter for Justice

Preamble

For too many years those who are close to the criminal justice system have observed the impact of funding restraints and cuts which have led to dilapidated buildings, reduced access to Justice, and a prison service on the point of collapse. The Lammy report has highlighted inequality of outcomes, and recently highlighted disclosure problems have shown systemic failures in the system.

This charter seeks to set the standards for a justice system that is sustainable, workable and fair.

1. Equal Access to Justice

Publicly funded representation is essential for defence and prosecution.

The CPS needs to be properly funded to properly present cases, and legal aid sufficiently available and remunerated to ensure equality of arms in an adversarial justice system, and to allow everyone access to legal advice and representation irrespective of mean

2. Disclosure

There should be full and fair disclosure of the Prosecution case to a suspect at the police station and defendant at court. Criminal justice is not a game, and proper disclosure needs to be made in a timely fashion so that those accused by the state can fully understand what they are accused of, and respond accordingly.

Failures in the disclosure process waste huge resources throughout the system and result in wrongful convictions, avoidable appeals and abandoned trials, damaging both the accused and victims of crime and undermining public confidence.

There is an urgent need to increase fairness, effectiveness and accountability within the disclosure process.

3. Open Justice

There should be no further court closures, and court buildings and their fabric should be maintained to an acceptable standard. The latest initiative of online pleas is a dangerous development that will remove the direct engagement that a defendant has with the court and legal representatives.

Every defendant or witness or member of the public should have a right to attend a court hearing in person.

The recent change to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act allowing the police to video-interview people wherever they choose without legal advice undermines vital protections for those suspected of crime and should be prohibited. This is especially dangerous for the young, those with mental health issues or learning disabilities, or for whom English is not a first language.

4. A humane and effective prison and probation service

Urgent action is required to upgrade and maintain the quality of prison buildings and facilities. There are too many people in prison and at risk of being sent to prison for failing to comply with conditions and urgent action is required to reduce the number of people in prison.

We must learn from other countries where prisons are more forward thinking and humane and re-offending rates are lower. There must be recruitment and retention of sufficient prison officers, and access to properly funded rehabilitation and education courses within the prison system.

The part privatisation of the probation service is a costly failure which should be reversed.

5. A Fair Justice system

Urgent action is needed to achieve equality of justice and eradicate the discrimination identified in the Lammy Report. Unless all have faith in the processes as well as the outcomes of our justice system, trust in the system will ebb away.

We need to work to eliminate unconscious bias amongst all those involved in the system through diverse recruitment, better training and rigorous monitoring.

Justice cannot be seen to be done when there are the clear differences in treatment and outcome identified in the Lammy Report, or arising through use of the legal concept of joint enterprise.

The LCCSA website can be found here so that you can follow developments of the Charter for Justice.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor David Gittins was recently instructed in a case where his client was at real risk of a driving ban.  This would have meant the loss of his job as a taxi driver and a substantial impact on his 4 children.

David’s client had been caught driving at 76 mph in an 30 mph speed limit close to Chesterfield Town Centre. David’s strong advocacy  and diligent preparation enabled the client to keep his driving licence.  Instead he left the court with a fine and penalty points.

This case, perhaps better than most, demonstrates the benefits of choosing a local Chesterfield motoring solicitor carefully.  Surprisingly, David’s client had tried to instruct another local solicitor’s firm.  They had declined to take the instruction as they didn’t believe he could save the Defendant’s driving license.

Benefits of a local Chesterfield motoring solicitor

David’s client told him that he had been caught speeding whilst driving out of Chesterfield town centre along Derby Road at excessive speeds.  With local knowledge, David was immediately able to recognise the seriousness of the situation.

David’s client had been running late and had made a terrible error in trying to make up time by grossly exceeding the speed limit.  His client did not dispute the speed.  He indicated to David his desire to plead guilty at the very first opportunity in order to gain maximum credit and demonstrate his remorse.  In retrospect he appreciated the potential danger he created with this piece of driving.

Our client required his driving licence to be able to work.  David had to make his client aware that due to the level of speed the Court would consider imposing an immediate driving disqualification  of up to 56 days.

As a Chesterfield motoring solicitor, David knew that the local Magistrates would also know the road in question.  Because of this he knew that the only way in which he could keep his client’s license was to prepare detailed mitigation to present to the Court.

David had two lengthy conferences with his client in advance of the Court hearing.  This was to take details of how a disqualification would impact upon him, his wife and their four children.  For example, he provided transport to a separate school for each child, as well as to a variety of after school activities. Bluntly put,  if the client lost his license it was almost impossible for the children to attend school on time due to their age and the travel involved.

David preparing a map to show the court the acute difficulties that his client’s children would face.  He also secured references on behalf of his client.  For example, his client was involved in the local community tackling drug addiction.

Penalty Points rather than a driving ban

As a result of this detailed preparation and strong advocacy, David was able to present his client’s mitigation in an extremely effective way.  Because of this, the Magistrates’ were persuaded to take a lenient approach.  David’s client received a fine and penalty points but no driving ban.  This meant that he was able to keep his employment and was understandably delighted with the outcome.

Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor

If you require the advice and representation of an expert motoring solicitor then please contact David at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or use the contact form below.  Details of our Chesterfield office can be found here.

David  can provide you with detailed and affordable advice as to whether you are able to challenge the prosecution evidence relating to your road traffic offence, or how you are likely to be sentenced following a guilty plea.