|
Mobile phone offence
March 09
When is a mobile phone not a mobile phone?
We recently won a case where our client argued that the "phone" that he was using whilst driving wasn't in fact a phone.
It was all to do with the frequency at which the device operated and it was a complex argument.
The prosecution agreed with us before trial that it wasn't a mobile and then tried to switch the charge to driving without due care and attention. They were outside of the limitation period (6 months) but the court agreed in the first instance to allow them to do this.
We asked the court to reopen the decision to allow the CPS to amend the charge to a different offence outside of limitation and the court agreed then agreed with us. The amendment was refused and the CPS were forced to withdraw the mobile phone allegation.
Our client got a defendant's costs order in order that he be reimbursed his reasonable legal expenses. So effectively our services were for free.
Happy client = happy solicitors!
Construction and use offence
April 2009
The Dune Buggy without Mudflaps Case
On the 13th April we won a very interesting little case. Our client came to us because he bought a Dune Buggy for use on British roads.
The Dune Buggy did not have any mudflaps, but he had a Certificate of Conformity in order to confirms that the vehicle compliant with EU regulations.
Despite the fact that we get just over 81% of our cases withdrawn without the need for a trial, we were not able to get the Crown Prosecution Service to see sense in relation to this case despite the fact that we served on them all the relevant legislation and a copy of the Certificate of Conformity.
It was not until the day of the trial that the Crown Prosecution Service actually agreed to 'throw in the towel'.
As a result, we managed to get our client a Defendant's Costs Order, which will reimburse him in full his reasonable legal expenses.
In reality this case was disproportionately too complex to what was actually at stake for our client but sometimes a client feels the need to make a point of principle and in this case, our client was absolutely right to do so and felt vindicated by this decision in that regard.
It was just a shame that the Crown Prosecution Service wasted so much public money by pursuing the matter so far and by failing to conduct a proper review of the case at an earlier stage, despite our copious representations inviting them to do so.
|
