The following is just a sample of the work we carry out in a twelve month period. Your privacy is important to us. We have protected identities by use of initial only.Make an enquiry »
R v M Hereford Magistrates’ Court
Mr. M was charged with drug driving. Ashley was instructed by specialist solicitors and secured a Not Guilty verdict by proving that the cannabis that accounted for the high reading was swallowed by Mr M after the police had stopped him to avoid them finding it, so at the time of driving, he was under the limit.
R v S Yeovil Magistrates’ Court
Mr. S approached motoringlawbarristers after a recommendation from a family member whose licence had been saved a year earlier. Facing at least 6 points and a large fine, he had been photographed at 98 mph on the motorway. By showing the court that this was a case of medical emergency, Ashley ensured that there was an absolute discharge. That means – no fine and no points
R v O Mold Magistrates’ Court
Mr. O was charged with failing to identify a driver who had been speeding. By proving that the crucial notice had not been delivered, Ashley secured a Not Guilty verdict and Mr. O was able to reclaim his costs.
R v H Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates’ Court
Mr H faced 3 separate charges of failing to identify a driver – that means 18 points and an almost inevitable disqualification. By negotiating with the prosecutor on the day of trial, Ashley ensured that all 3 cases were dropped in return for a Guilty plea to one offence of speeding and a total of 3 penalty points. Licence saved.
R v H Newport Magistrates’ Court
By showing the failures of the prosecution to serve its evidence in time, Ashley was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict and to avoid a ban without the matter even reaching trial.
R v Z Loughborough Magistrates’ Court
The prosecution had simply not warned the main police witness in a drink drive case to attend court. Their application to adjourn to a new date was challenged by Ashley and refused. The case was dismissed. An unsatisfactory way to ‘win’ but increasingly common as the Government starves the CPS of funds.
R v J Manchester Magistrates’ Court
Mr J was charged with drink driving. The evidence against him was mainly contained in a forensic report into his blood by the multinational science firm Randox. Along with a small band of other specialists, Ashley had long been challenging the quality of the forensic evidence from this firm. Between challenging the evidence and the day of trial, all these challenges were confirmed. So flawed was the testing carried out by Randox that the prosecution had to abandon the case as they now acknowledged the flaws we had been flagging up for so long.
R v R Beverley Magistrates’ Court
By showing the errors in the hospital procedure for taking urine, Ashley was able to have the entire prosecution case rendered inadmissible in a case of drink driving. Mrs. R was not only acquitted, she secured all her costs.
R v S Stratford Magistrates’ Court
Another drink drive case that the prosecution simply had to drop as a result of poor preparation, all stemming from being underfunded and understaffed. Another unsatisfactory way to ‘win.’ However, the simple fact is that motoringlawbarristers prepares every case fully. The prosecution often does not.
R v P Newcastle-Under-Lyme Magistrates’ Court
Having challenged the forensic evidence in a case of drug driving, Ashley was able to have the entire prosecution case ruled inadmissible because of the prosecution’s failure to follow the detailed criminal procedure rules. A detailed knowledge of these is crucial in any motoring law case case. Sadly, not enough lawyers pay careful enough attention to them.
R v W Blackburn Magistrates’ Court
In an almost identical case, the prosecution were unable to adduce forensic evidence to the court as Ashley challenged a lack of disclosure. Again, a Not Guilty verdict without having a trial at all.
R v C Lincoln Magistrates’ Court
In a most unusual case, the District Judge decided that, as Mr. C was so drunk that he was physically incapable of providing a specimen of breath and should have been required to provide blood instead, he could not be guilty of failing to provide a specimen. He was therefore found Not Guilty and avoided a very lengthy ban
- The CPS have appealed this ruling and the matter is due to be heard in the High Court shortly.
R v S Runcorn Magistrates’ Court
Another failure by the prosecution to correctly serve forensic evidence in a drug drive case. This is a relatively new offence and it seems that the prosecution does not yet fully understand how to prosecute it. Fortunately, motoringlawbarristers knows how to defend it.
R v P Beverley Magistrates’ Court
Charged with driving at 73 mph in a 30 mph zone, Mr. P faced a lengthy ban. In negotiations with the prosecutor, Ashley was able to have the case dealt with at an admitted speed of 60 mph. 6 penalty points were endorsed but Mr. P saved his licence, which he desperately needed as a professional driver.
R v H Sunderland Magistrates’ Court
Ashley was able to secure a Not Guilty verdict by proving that post-driving consumption accounted for Mr. H being over the limit – also known as the ‘hip flask’ defence.
R v P Chorley Magistrates’ Court
Having already pleaded Guilty to speeding at 100 mph and with 6 penalty points already on his licence, it seemed likely that Mr. P would face a 6 month totting up ban. By showing that Mr. P’s father, who was in very poor health, relied wholly on Mr. P to attend hospital, Ashley ensured that Mr. P was not disqualified.
R v R Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court
Mr. R was a pensioner but still worked as a result of costly divorce. His licence was vital for him to continue working and Ashley was able to show that he may lose his house should he be disqualified for reaching 12 points. The court agreed that there would be exceptional hardship and did not disqualify.