Mobile phone loophole for filming drivers ‘to be closed’

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr E, who faced a disqualification period of up to 56 days for travelling at 108mph in a 70mph speed restriction area.

Mitigation was presented to the Court in an effort to try and persuade them to not disqualify at all and, instead, give Mr E penalty points. The Court were persuaded by the argument and imposed 6 penalty points instead of a driving ban. Mr E required his car to commute to the salon that he works, and also to convey his equipment with him. The court accepted the arguments put forward and Mr E was delighted that he was not disqualified.

Offence: Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle

Defence: Mitigation

Millars Solicitors were instructed by Mr H who pleaded guilty to the offence of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

Mr H faced a potential disqualification period of up to 12 months, and a possible custodial sentence.

Powerful mitigation was presented on Mr H’s behalf. The Court were persuaded by the arguments put forward and Mr H received 10 penalty points instead of a driving disqualification. It was advanced at Court that any period of disqualification would be devastating to Mr H. His position in his job would become untenable as he relied upon his driving licence to travel. Mr H was the main income provider within his household and he had real concerns that his mortgage payments would not be met and therefore would face repossession proceedings. The Magistrates were persuaded by the argument and imposed penalty points instead of a ban.

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr H, who was travelling at twice the speed limit, at 63mph in a 30mph speed restriction area. Mr H was very concerned about being disqualified. The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of up to 56 days where the speed is between 51-60mph. Mr H was literally off the scales and therefore was concerned.

Powerful mitigation was presented at Court and the Magistrates accepted the argument and imposed 6 penalty points instead of a period of disqualification.

It was advanced on Mr H’s behalf that he appreciated that the speed he was travelling at was unacceptable. However, any period of disqualification would have been disastrous to him, his business and his family.

Offence: Speeding and / or Totting up 12 penalty points on driving licence for second time within a 3 year period

Defence: Mitigation and Exceptional Hardship

Millar’s Solicitors were instructed by Mr H who faced disqualification for a minimum period of 12 months under the totting up provisions.

Mr H was travelling at 110mph in a 70mph speed restriction area. In accordance with the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines, he would face a disqualification of up to 56 days for the offence alone. Unfortunately, Mr H had been disqualified 2 years previously for 56 days. The result of this was that he faced a minimum period of disqualification of 12 months under the totting up provisions due to having the previous disqualification for 56 days within the previous 3 years.

Clearly, Mr H’s preference was a short term ban for the offence alone, rather than trying to advance exceptional hardship and running the risk of losing and then facing the disqualification period of 12 months.

Mitigation was advanced and the Court accepted the argument to impose a short term disqualification of 15 days. Obviously, Mr H was delighted with the outcome, as he could have been disqualified for a period of 12 months.

Offence: Totting up 12 penalty points on driving licence

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr I, who faced disqualification for a minimum period of six months under the totting up provisions.

Exceptional hardship was advanced on Mr I’s behalf and the Court were persuaded by the arguments. In the circumstances, they did not disqualify him at all from driving.

Mr I was concerned about being disqualified from driving and the impact that this would have upon his business. He had real concerns that the company that he owned would go into liquidation and that he would have to make staff redundant. He was concerned about the collateral damage following on from that, and also concerned that he would not be able to meet his mortgage payments as he did not have any savings to fall back on.

The Court were persuaded by the arguments put forward by Millars Solicitors and he was not disqualified from driving under the totting up provisions.

Offence: Speeding

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr N who faced disqualification for a minimum period of 56 days.

Mr N was travelling at 112mph in a 70mph speed restriction area. The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest a period of disqualification of up to 56 days where the speed is up to 110mph. Unfortunately, Mr N was literally off the scales, even in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

Powerful mitigation was presented by Messrs Millars Solicitors about the impact of a substantial period of disqualification upon Mr N and his family.

It was advanced that it would have been difficult for Mr N to travel to work and to continue with his voluntary work with the boy scouts. Mr N found himself in the criminal justice system for the first time in his life and was entirely embarrassed. The Court recognised his remorse and limited the period of disqualification to 14 days in the circumstances. Naturally, Mr N was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Failing to Stop, Failing to Report and Driving without Due Care and Attention / Careless Driving

Defence: Mitigation

Carl Millar was instructed by Mr O’H who faced disqualification as a result of two separate offences of failing to stop, failing to report and driving without due care and attention / careless driving.

Regarding the incident, Mr O’H had reversed into another vehicle and caused damage to that vehicle.
The Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest the imposition of 3-9 penalty points for driving without due care and attention, or a period of disqualification. For failing to stop, the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest the imposition of between 5-10 penalty points endorsed on a driving licence, or a disqualification. For failing to report, the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest the imposition of between 5-10 penalty points, or a disqualification.

We argued the totality principle as all three offences arose out of one event. The Court were persuaded by this argument and imposed the minimum amount of points in the circumstances, which was 5 penalty points.

Naturally, Mr O’H was delighted with the outcome.

Offence: Totting up 12 penalty points on driving licence

Defence: Exceptional Hardship

Carl Millar from Keep My Driving Licence part of Millar’s Solicitors was instructed by Mr W who faced disqualification for a minimum period of six months under the totting up provisions.

Mr W pleaded guilty to using a handheld mobile telephone. At the time of the incident, he had 6 penalty points on his driving licence. The Court gave him a further 6 penalty points for the offence of using a handheld mobile telephone, and he was now therefore a “totter”.

Powerful mitigation was advanced on behalf of Mr W. In short, a period of disqualification for six months would have meant that his position of employment would be untenable. This would have a significant impact upon his wife and children who were dependant on his income in order to put a roof over their heads. There were real concerns for Mr W that his house may be repossessed.

Another argument undertaken was that Mr W was an electrician working for the local authority in his area. We advanced exceptional hardship to the general public at large.

We relied upon the case of Cornwall v Coke. In that case, the defendant’s appeal was allowed and Judge Lee stated that hardship to the public is a mitigating circumstance, and indeed is a rather stronger mitigation than hardship to the offender, and that therefore the Magistrates did have a discretion to not disqualify in the circumstances.

Mr W was not disqualified and was naturally delighted.

We all know that the police are ever more vigilant on their drink driving campaigns at Christmas however, it has been reported that traffic officers may be targeting female drivers this year.

The news seems to come on the back of reports that women are convicted of drink driving offences more than any other.

These reports come at a time when many people are getting ready for their Christmas parties.

Drink driving figures have declined over the past few years, but the numbers of people being caught and convicted still cause the authorities a lot of concern.

It is interesting to note that out of all the convictions against women, 64% of them are for drink driving. That can be compared with 62% for men.

The research carried out by Insurance Revolution, indicated the most likely age group for women being caught drink driving is in the 45-60 year bracket.

Conversely, the likely age bracket for male drink drivers is between 25-34 years olds.

“As far as motoring offences go, drink driving is a massive concern – especially over the Christmas period,” says Mark Rigby, managing director of Insurance Revolution.

“As more and more people will be celebrating over the holiday season, we need to remind everyone that the consequences of driving under the influence might not just include a court appearance, but also death.”

In the UK, causing death by careless driving when under the influence can result in 14 years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, a ban from driving for two years and an extended driving test before a licence is returned.

Mark Rigby concludes: “We urge all drivers to look at other methods of transport home after work parties, pub outings and celebrations over this festive period.

“A taxi fare is definitely worth spending for that peace of mind.”

It has been further reported that police are likely to start their Christmas drink-driving campaigns during mid-November.