Thames Valley Police Motoring Allegation Dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service

Thames Valley Police Motoring Allegation Dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Service

K recently instructed Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team in connection with two motoring allegations brought by Thames Valley Police, which are due to be heard at Banbury Magistrates Court in April 2011.

K had been driving his vehicle on the M40 motorway through Oxfordshire when he was stopped by an officer from Thames Valley Police. The officer was of the view that K had been speaking into his mobile telephone whilst driving, which K categorically denied. Indeed K denied that he had been using a mobile telephone at all. The officer offered K the opportunity to attend a call divert course as an alternative to prosecution. K refused this offer, as well as the fixed penalty, maintaining that he had done nothing wrong.

K maintained that he had been merely moving his iPod Touch from the centre console of the vehicle to another part of the cabin so that it would be in a more secure position. Upon receipt of the Summons from Banbury Magistrates Court he wrote to Thames Valley Police giving his account of events. The Crown Prosecution Service then, upon receiving his account, added an additional allegation of driving without due care and attention.

K approached Tim Williamson, a solicitor in Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team for advice about what to do next. Tim advised that K should enter not guilty pleas to both offences and that he would make representations to the Crown Prosecution Service about the merits of the prosecution.

It seemed clear from the prosecution papers that the officer did not warn K at the side of the road that he was at risk of being reported for the more serious offence of driving without due care and attention. All K received at the side of the road was a call divert course leaflet.

Driving without due care and attention is an offence to which section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 applies. This means that where there has not been an accident, a Notice of Intended Prosecution must be given to the motorist at the time of the alleged offence, be served on him/her (or the registered keeper for certain offences) within 14 days of the alleged offence or a summons be served on him / her within 14 days of the alleged offence. Clearly none of this happened and there therefore appeared to be a statutory prohibition on conviction. This was made clear to the Crown Prosecution Service in correspondence.

A few days after receiving Tim's letter the Crown Prosecution Service sent a Notice of Discontinuance to the Justices Clerk at Banbury Magistrates Court thereby bringing to an end the case against K.

Needless to say, K was delighted that he did not have to go to court and no longer faced the prospect of having to pay a fine or have penalty points endorsed on his driving licence. A conviction would also have inevitably led to a rise in K's insurance premiums, which of course he no longer needs to worry about.

POST COMMENT

A Safe Drive Through Foggy Roads Calculating the Real Electric Car Savings How Useful It Is To Compare Car Finance Rates Car Hire in Australia - Getting to Know Australian Roads Helpful tips for the Ways to Find the Best 24 Hour Car Locksmith: NYC Elderly Driving Statistics: The Scope of the Problem and How We Can Keep the Roads Safer Winter Driving - How to Prepare For a Safe Winter on the Roads When To Send Affordable Gift Baskets And How To Find The Perfect One How Cars and Semi Trucks Can Coexist on the Same Roads Bargain Cars for £1,500 Best Cars For Fuel Consumption Your Corvette Brakes Need Care Best Vacations in Thailand on a Budget with special offers