• bg image
    We Provide Free Legal Advice
    On All Motoring Matters
    Call 0333 011 0515 Now

MJP Motoring Defence Cases

Here are some of our most recent cases of clients who before contacting MJP Motoring Solicitors may have been forgiven for believing that they would shortly be relying on the bus! We have not disclosed the names of our clients for reasons of client confidentiality.

Refusing a Breath Specimen

Trial Client Acquitted

Man charged with Refusing a Breath Specimen without a reasonable excuse. Police alleged that he had refused to answer the majority of the standard questions during the Drink Drive procedure and when asked to provide a specimen he refused to do so. We obtained the C.C.T.V from the custody suite showing the Drink Drive procedure taking place. Whilst the defendant gave no response to the question "Do you agree to provide?" on no fewer than 5 occasions (he also turned his back on the officer carrying out the procedure); a very close listen to the CCTV revealed that he did go on to say the following words "I have no objection". The police insisted on a "yes" or "no" answer and eventually charged him with refusal when no such answer was forthcoming.

We successfully argued that the response "I have no objection" was a sufficiently clear indication of his agreement and in light of that he should have been put before the breathalyser machine. As this was not done it could not be said that he had refused.

Charged With Careless Driving

Case Discontinued - C.P.S Discontinued Case

Client of MJP solicitors contravenes a red light and is accused of careless driving.

Police inform him that they will deal with the matter by way of advice only i.e. verbal warning regarding the manner of driving with no charge or criminal proceedings. Client requests CCTV of incident and raises concerns in relation to the police taking not taking action against another driver.

Police state that as a result of his expressed concerns the matter can no longer be dealt with by way of advice only and summons him for careless driving and failing to comply with a red light.

Solicitor Mr Gary Bryan drafts a skeleton argument arguing that the proceedings are an abuse of the court process on the basis that the proceedings were instituted in breach of a promise not to prosecute. Prosecution given time to lodge a skeleton argument in rebuttal.

Prosecution respond by serving a notice of discontinuance. Clients costs met by the court.

Charged With Drink Driving

Case Discontinued - C.P.S Persuaded To Discontinue

C.P.S persuaded to discontinue Drink Driving charge after receiving our skeleton argument establishing that they can no longer rely on the breath certificate after an option to take blood failed.

No Insurance

No Penalty Points - Special Reasons Argument

Delivery driver whose occupation would not allow for the imposition of any penalty points at all, admits driving his own car without insurance but avoids penalty points after we successfully argued ´special reasons´ on basis that whilst his insurance company did warn him that the policy would be cancelled, previous conduct by the company suggested that this wouldn´t happen.

Totting Up Ban

Ban Avoided - Exceptional Hardship Argument

Single mother receives in excess of 12 penalty points but avoids ban when we successfully argued ´exceptional hardship´ on basis she would not be able to do the school run

Charged With Drink Driving

Case Discontinued - Inadmissible Blood Certificate

The Crown Prosecution Service discontinued a charge of Drink Driving after they received our Skeleton Argument establishing that the breath specimen had become inadmissible due to the fact that whilst at the custody suite the defendant had been given the option of replacing it with a blood specimen. The doctor was unable to take blood from the defendants arm. Nevertheless we successfully argued that the Prosecution could not now fall back on the breath specimen print out.

Charged With Drink Driving

Trial Client Acquitted

Woman who admits Drink Driving is nevertheless acquitted at Trial when the defence of Necessity is successfully argued.

Failing To Comply With A No Entry Sign

Case Discontinued

Section 36(1) Road Traffic Act 1988

Failing to Comply with a No Entry Sign; Contrary to Section 36(1) Road Traffic Act 1988.

Self employed taxi driver summonsed to appear before court to answer the charge of Failing to Comply with a No Entry Sign. The offence carries 3 penalty points, a financial penalty and court costs.

Client's real difficulty being that he had been applying for a new job for which he was still undergoing both written and physical assessments. The new job (which represented an exciting change of career) stipulated that you must be the holder of a full drivers licence with no more than 6 penalty points upon it.

A guilty plea to contravening the No Entry Sign would have resulted in the imposition of 3 penalty points bringing client up to 9 penalty points. Thus ruining his chances of being successful with his job application. We successfully argued the no entry sign must comply with the Road Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2002. In particular Regulation 18 and Schedule 17 of the Regulations which states that the sign must be illuminated during the hours of darkness or for so long as the system of street lights for that road is illuminated.

As the offence occurred at 2300 hours and the lamp attached to the sign was not working the sign did not comply and accordingly the offence had not been made out.

Our Motoring Solicitor had the case discontinued in court on the first appearance.

Clients legal costs are paid by the Court. Accordingly client receives legal representation from our Specialist Motoring Solicitor free of charge!

Can't Talk Now? Leave your name and number and we'll call you.


contact us

For further information and advice speak to one of our specialist solicitors today by using the details below or fill in the form and we will get back to you.

Telephone: 0151 286 9594

24 Hour: 0333 011 0515








Copyrights © 2013 & All Rights Reserved by MJP solicitors.

Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (203739)