Kent Traffic Law - Motoring Offence Barrister Reviews

Your case at Maidstone Magistrates’ Court was a typical ‘New Driver’ case: you faced licence revocation and the hurdle of re-taking theory and practical tests before you could drive again for an offence of driving without insurance. The major problem is that, even if you pass your re-tests first time, the waiting lists are at record lengths meaning that, in practice, you would have lost your job in the meantime. Typically, of course, one’s ability to earn a living is the foundation upon which all of our plans are based and so you are at risk of losing so much more than just the ability to drive.

In your case we met a few weeks ago for me to take instructions and to advise you on any steps you needed to take in advance of your hearing. Consequently, you attended court with all of the documents we needed to help support your case. However, we had a shock at court as the Magistrates did not realise they had the discretion to impose a short disqualification; the Chairman of the Bench kept referring to it being ‘mandatory’ for the court to order the endorsement of 6 points! When I read the Sentencing Guidelines, which bind the court, for New Drivers to him and handed it up to him, for the Magistrates to consider when they retired, he literally asked the clerk, ‘What is this?’

In other words, this was one of those cases where we weren’t just seeking to make the case that it would be unduly harsh, in all the circumstances, to order a 6 point endorsement, but also to explain to the court that they had power to do so! It is not often that the Magistrates and the court clerk are so clueless. After a long time considering their decision they returned to order a 14 day ban (which was perfect for us as I had advised you to book your annual leave from the court date and you had booked the remainder of your leave – which just happened to be 2 weeks)!

So, all’s well that ends well, but it was an extremely close thing. It just goes to show that one cannot take anything for granted. Of course, we didn’t; we were well prepared for to make our case. I am very pleased the court saw its merits.

Thank you very much for posting your review.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Many motorists don't realise that completing the optional 'circumstances' box on a police s172 Notice is a procedural minefield; providing the information without careful legal guidance can make a prosecution more, not less, likely.

I’m pleased that my experience as a barrister helped us navigate these nuances effectively in your case. By providing a structured, carefully crafted account at the outset, the police have been persuaded to drop the case against you entirely! This is a wonderful outcome and means that the costs and stresses of a drawn-out criminal prosecution have been averted (along with the risk of a driving disqualification).

In my experience, even if the police had decided to prosecute you, the provision of a well thought-out early written account, tends to result in more favourable outcomes in the end. Thankfully, that is now a hypothetical matter in your case!

I am very pleased with this result and wish you all the best.

Yours was a typical penalty points disqualification hearing; ie the defence submission of 'exceptional hardship' was based upon the potential loss of work and associated outcomes. Each case turns on its own facts but loss of job/business and / or source of income is a very common feature of typical cases. In a sense, this is the difficulty ie the case has to be 'exceptional' to secure the outcome sought by the defence. Yet, the claims that a ban will result in loss of income is very common.

However, our case was well prepared and you were fully aware of what to expect when giving evidence in court. Fortunately, all of that preparation paid off in the end with the desired outcome.

Thank you for your review.

New Drivers only need to reach 6 penalty points before they face automatic licence revocation. Given the very lengthy waiting lists for resits this can mean being unable to drive for very many months until both the theory and practical tests have been passed. In turn, this often means loss of job with all that that entails for you and your family. I frequently have new driver clients who cannot afford the disruption to their lives that licence revocation will bring.

In your case you sought guidance on the phone well in advance of your trial date. We set up an in-person meeting at which we worked out our strategy of dealing with your case. You followed the advice I gave you at this meeting in terms of steps you needed to take in advance of your court hearing (including changing you plea!)

On the day in court it looked like we weren't going to get our way but at the last minute the court decided to make a disposal which meant you could keep your job (for which your licence was necessary). The strategy had worked!

I would recommend to motorists to make an early phone call as I don't charge for an initial telephone review. In your case, your change of approach resulting from that call resulted in the positive outcome you sought. The earlier in proceedings you call the better.

Thank you for your review.

New Drivers who have 6 points endorsed for offences committed within 2 years of passing the test automatically face licence revocation. This means both the theory and practical tests have to be passed before driving again. Often such a delay means loss of job with all that that means for family and dependents. Therefore, most new drivers are extremely anxious to avoid licence revocation.

With all enquiries I personally discuss matters on the phone at the outset to see how I can help. I quote fixed fees. If the client wishes to proceed we meet face to face to plan a strategy. Once we have worked out a plan I then advise on steps to take in advance of the court hearing.

We met early at court on the day of the hearing. In my practice I personally attend; I do not brief junior barristers to attend at the last minute. I tend to find that continuity of advice and representation from start to finish tends to result in better outcomes. Fortunately, in your case this was how it worked out. I am pleased you obtained the outcome you sought.

Thank you very much for your review.

When a motorist calls who is genuinely in fear of loss of licence, as opposed to someone who is simply trying to avoid a trivial penalty such as 3 points and a fine, I take some time, perhaps up to about 20 minutes, to discuss the situation. I don't consider it formal legal advice as there is insufficient time to take full instructions and advise. However, I can usually help the client decide whether they actually need to pay for a consultation or not. Often I find that I can help to clarify matters so that, in fact, the motorist may not need to book a consultation with me or anyone else (which was the case with you.) If, however, a consultation is booked we both know that it is worthwhile to do so as we have made sufficient headway in our first call to make that assessment. I am very pleased I was able to assist you. Thank you for leaving your review.

Originally you rang me to ask about what was likely to happen in your case never having been in that situation before. You had many questions. We spoke for about 30 minutes on the phone before you decided to book a consultation. (The initial call can vary in length from a short call to a long one which depends on the circumstances. There is no charge, as you know, for the initial discussion.) In that call I quoted you fixed fees based upon what your case entailed. We met to prepare for the court hearing. When the day in court arrived we met early at court to go over matters once again. Fortunately, we obtained the outcome you had sought.

Thank you very much for posting your review.

Dear Unicorn Automotive, it is true that once the nature of the issues have been established that fixed fees are quoted in the initial telephone discussion. I appreciate that someone who is facing a minor speeding offence to which he is happy to plead 'guilty', as you said you were, will not want to pay a substantial fee. However, quoting fees in an initial call prevents misunderstandings and any potential waste of time. Sometimes the initial discussion can last, say, 20 minutes. There is no charge for this and those who stay on the line tend to find it very useful. Those who have a substantial issue at stake, and who have paid the relevant fees, have, judging by their reviews, found that they have obtained value for money.

As a 'New Driver' the endorsement of 6 penalty points, for offences within the first 2 years of passing you test, will result in licence revocation. With today's excessive waiting lists to re-sit a test this can mean loss of job, income or even worse for those in your situation. Thus, we agreed to seek a short sharp disqualification at court instead.

We met for me to take instructions from you. I advised you of steps to take given your particular circumstances that would strengthen your case at court. Subsequently, I attended court in Margate to represent you (with Kent Traffic Law there is no risk of a stranger attending to represent you; I deal with all court cases personally). The court accepted everything that was put forward on your behalf and was clearly impressed with the steps you had taken since committing the relevant offence.

At 41mph/30mph limit the guideline sentence was a disqualification of 7-28 days or the endorsement of 4-6 points. For the reasons explained above we sought a ban rather than points. That the court only banned you for 7 days indicated that the court was impressed by you as this was at the very bottom end of the relevant range. That they chose not to fine you, at all, was most unusual. In fact, I have not come across this, in a situation such as yours, ever! It just goes to show that when a case is clearly and persuasively presented sometimes the outcome can be even better than hoped!

Thank you for your review.

All of my contracts allow a 14 day cooling off period during which clients may cancel and obtain a full refund. It is extremely rare for any of my clients to cancel although if they do so I regard it as unbecoming to quibble or query. It is your right to do so. Consequently, I will make a refund in such circumstances. I regard this as the ethically correct approach.

In your case you cancelled the day before our scheduled meeting by which time I had begun preparatory work on your case. Such work is chargeable according to our contract. However, I elected not to make any charge (or even mention the power to do so) given the 'personal' nature of your reason for cancelling.

I appreciate that you have taken the time and trouble to post a review. Thank you.

If you have 6 penalty points already, and commit another offence which could be dealt with by a further 6 points, then you run the risk of a penalty points disqualification ie a ban of at least 6 months. If the only way to avoid such a ban is by proving that you would suffer 'exceptional hardship' then it can be tempting to start preparing for that eventuality especially if you are advised to do so by a series of solicitors on the phone. This was your situation when you rang me some weeks ago. Upon taking the time to learn of your situation it became apparent to me that your chances of establishing you would suffer 'exceptional hardship' were remote. Accordingly, I suggested to you that the better approach would be to try to persuade the court to endorse fewer than 6 points so that you would avoid a ban altogether. This made sense to you and so you instructed me and we met face to face for me to take full details from you about your case. I then advised you of further steps to take before the hearing (which you took). I am not a solicitor; I am a sole trader barrister and I don't accept cases unless I am able to personally attend at court to represent my clients. I do not send junior or local agents to attend on my behalf as solicitors usually do. This ensures that you don't find a stranger representing you at court (which can be disconcerting). At court I conveyed your mitigation and the court accepted everything put forward on your behalf. The gent whose case was called on before you was unrepresented and made an 'exceptional hardship' submission; based on what he said in court he clearly had a case worth considering but it was very poorly prepared and presented. He was disqualified from driving (which, according to him, meant he would lose his business). Fortunately, you didn't need to establish 'exceptional hardship' as you didn't reach 12 points in the first place!
After the case you told me how all of the solicitors firms you had rung initially had told you you should prepare to make an 'exceptional hardship' submission and that you were greatly appreciative that you had rung me and adopted a different strategy. (I don’t know if the representatives you spoke to were actually qualified lawyers or simply paralegals charged with dealing with sales calls.) In my case I take the time to personally speak to enquirers before they commit to engaging me. In this way we can work together on an agreed strategy rather than finding out later that there are misunderstandings. The most expensive way forward isn't necessarily going to be the best approach. I am very pleased that in your case our strategy paid handsome dividends. Thank you for your review.

The minimum duration of a penalty points disqualification is either 6, 12 or 24 months, depending on one's previous driving record. The only way to avoid such a ban, assuming one has the relevant tally of penalty points, is by proving that the motorist, and / or others who depend on him or her, would cumulatively suffer 'exceptional hardship'. It is axiomatic that the vast majority of individuals seeking to establish this will fail (as, by definition, in the vast majority of cases the court will not find that 'exceptional hardship' would result). In your case we met well in advance of your hearing date for you to give me full instructions upon all relevant background matters. I then advised you on the applicable law and procedure in such cases and advised you of steps to take in advance of the hearing. It is especially important that this is well understood by the client as it is the client who will usually be expected to give evidence on oath in court as to his or her circumstances. It is easy to score 'own goals' in court without a full understanding of how the court would apply the law and procedure in any given case. In your case, having been well prepared for the hearing, we attended court, you gave evidence and I summed up your case to ensure the court was clear on all relevant points. Fortunately, the court ruled in your favour. This meant a great deal to you given that a protracted disqualification would have been very costly to your business and family. I am pleased the court ruled in your favour and thank you for your review.

Often motorists don't realise just how seriously this offence is taken. It can be considered worse than cases of drink driving. Therefore, it is really important to have good guidance from the first phone call. In your case we met to discuss the case and for me to take full instructions. We were fully and well prepared for court today and fortunately we enjoyed the 'rub of the green' and emerged from court with a very favourable outcome. Preparation and presentation is the key! Thank you for your review.

Mine is a sole trader practice and so usually I take the trouble to speak to every single enquirer when they first make contact. How else can I ensure that no one is misled and that we are entering a process with an agreed approach. We then met face to face and prepared for your hearing date. I personally represented you in court. I find that by dealing with matters personally from start to finish that clients tend to enjoy better outcomes. This was the case with you. Thank you for your review.

In many cases it is not in the client's interests to challenge a case even if a period of obligatory disqualification would follow upon a conviction. The client's interests lie in understanding what his or her chances are of a 'Not Guilty' verdict if the case is contested. Even the strongest cases can be challenged in court. However, this is likely to dramatically increase legal and other costs (such as the time it takes to finish a case, the number of hearings necessary, and the overall stress involved). Therefore, an initial frank assessment should be made as to whether there is a good chance of 'winning' the case. If the reality is the chance of avoiding a conviction is minimal the client should be told this at the outset. I find clients, such as yourself, appreciate this approach. Thank you for your review.

You have kindly set out a fairly full and accurate account of what transpires when my services are engaged. Firstly, I take the time to ensure that I understand the caller’s situation. I give ‘provisional guidance’ not legal advice during that call. If it is clear that I can help I quote fixed fees. We meet in order for me to take detailed instructions from the client both as to the offence and as to his or her background. (I have recently learned that some solicitors’ firms take instructions by questionnaire! Others have a telephone or virtual meeting. I consider that there is no substitute for an in-person meeting). At the meeting I give formal legal advice as to the range of sentencing options. I also advise the client at this stage if any steps should be taken prior to the hearing date in order to improve sentencing prospects.

On the day of the hearing I personally attend to represent the client. (However, solicitors make prolific use of agents, such as junior barristers or local solicitors, to represent their clients so that, frequently, clients are represented by lawyers they have not met before. I consider this unsatisfactory. This is why I attend personally). I usually arrange with the client to meet at court early in order to answer any last minute questions and to ensure that we are completely ready for the hearing.

As a senior barrister I have decades of experience of oral advocacy. I use that experience to present the most persuasive plea of mitigation to ensure that the client receives the best outcome his or her circumstances will allow. In your husband’s case he had very good mitigation which the court accepted in full. It is very unusual for the court to depart from the sentencing guidelines but in this case they did just that! This is why the court felt able to literally give the shortest disqualification allowed by law. I was really pleased for him as this gives your husband the best chance of retaining his employment.

In so far as fixed date court cases, such as this one, are concerned I only take the case if I can see it through personally from start to finish as I believe this gives the client the best chance of the most favourable outcome. There are no guarantees but, fortunately, this is what happened in your husband’s case.

Thank you very much for your review.

New Drivers, those within 2 years of passing the driving test, cannot afford to have 6 points endorsed for offences committed within that 2 year period as this will result in revocation of licence. With delays for retests at all time highs this can mean being without a licence for very many months. Those whose jobs depend on the ability to drive face loss of job with all that that may entail. There is a potential way around the problem; it is by asking the court to impose a ban instead of points. In your case they gave such a short ban that you will be able to continue driving and thereby retain your current lifestyle in only 2 weeks. We couldn't have asked for a more lenient penalty although the court carefully weighed up all of your mitigation before reaching this outcome. Thank you for your review.

When you rang you explained your son's situation and I suggested to you that you should consider dealing with this matter alone as the court clerks are usually very helpful to unrepresented Defendants in such situations explaining to them how to make an oath to re-open a case. Of course, then you would have avoided incurring legal fees. However, having considered my suggestion your son nevertheless engaged me to meet you all at court to try to help in any way I could. The case was listed at 2pm. When we met, over the lunch hour, your case was explained to me. As counsel I slipped into court before the first afternoon case was called on and spoke with the court clerk and the prosecutor. I explained to the prosecutor that your son's identity had been used by a fraudster and that the relevant conviction was unjust. She accepted this explanation and advised all of the steps that your son should take once the case was re-opened. When the case was called on the court clerk surprisingly intervened to challenge the fact that the statutory declaration had not been served within the statutory time limit ie within 21 days of finding out about the erroneous conviction. This seemed an unusual intervention from the court clerk but I was then able to step in and persuade the court to extend the deadline. Fortunately, the matter was re-opened and adjourned. Your son now has 6 months to email the list of information that I had discussed with the prosecutor (which I had set out to you in a conference after the conclusion of the case.) We now expect that the likely outcome is that the cps will drop the case before the next hearing date and so advise your son so that he neither needs to attend again nor incur any more legal fees. As a bonus, they heard our case even though most of the afternoon cases were to be adjourned to another date (as they had run out of court time. It may not be fair but sometimes represented Defendants are given more consideration than those who do not incur legal fees when their case is adjourned!) So, all in all, there was plenty for me to do notwithstanding that ordinarily I will always advise Defendants that it is not 'necessary' for them to obtain legal representation when appearing to make a statutory declaration in order to have a case re-opened. Thank you for your review.

Once a driver is caught speeding at over 100mph, it can be extremely challenging to avoid disqualification, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. The court considers various factors, including the driver’s age and the extent to which the speed exceeded 100mph, both of which were significant concerns in your situation.

Because your business relied on you keeping your licence, you instructed me for a detailed advice meeting. You followed all the preparatory steps I recommended before your hearing, and we were thoroughly prepared on the day. As you saw, the outcome was finely balanced, but after retiring to consider the matter, the court ultimately imposed 6 penalty points and a fine instead of a disqualification.

You were delighted with this result, as losing your licence would have been disastrous for your business. Thank you for taking the time to leave your review.

It can be extremely important to understand how best to approach a voluntary interview. I am pleased it paid dividends in your case. Thank you for your review.