Amazing road traffic offence defence?
Discussion
This article drew my attention. In summary:
The reason I was prompted to post this thread, however, concerns her wonderful legal defence. I'm still scratching my head.
It continues:
There's a reason AGTLaw's number is in my phone (just in case). I think I shall give this other purveyor of public defence a wide berth should I ever require such services.
No particular input sought. This just raised an eyebrow and I thought if it was posted in GG it'd only get moved here anyway.
Article said:
A mum-to-be, who was clocked speeding twenty times in just two months, is still allowed to drive.
Beauty business boss Georgia Elisabeth Carney, 30, has 66 points on her licence , but Magistrates accepted her "special reasons" argument, meaning she can keep her licence.
Speed cameras caught Carney, from Widnes , multiple times on the M62 between junctions 11 and 12, where the speed limit had changed from 70mph to 50mph.
And last summer, she was caught travelling in excess of the 50mph limit 20 times - twice at 80mph, in the space of two months.
So, a habitual offender with little apparent regard.Beauty business boss Georgia Elisabeth Carney, 30, has 66 points on her licence , but Magistrates accepted her "special reasons" argument, meaning she can keep her licence.
Speed cameras caught Carney, from Widnes , multiple times on the M62 between junctions 11 and 12, where the speed limit had changed from 70mph to 50mph.
And last summer, she was caught travelling in excess of the 50mph limit 20 times - twice at 80mph, in the space of two months.
Article said:
Carney, who puts on beauty courses at salons, said a driving ban would cause her exceptional hardship because she wouldn't be able to carry all her gear on public transport, reports the M.E.N.
Surely not part of the special reasons the mags accepted, as that affects her. One imagines that a taxi would take her gear just as well as her own private motor might?Article said:
She also told Manchester Magistrates’ Court her mum would suffer if she was banned from the road as she is the named guarantor on her rented flat - and the named contact in relation to her leased Audi.
Now we're getting to it. However...Article said:
Carney was hit with a £2,000 fine and ordered to pay £115 court costs. She was allowed to keep her licence, despite amassing 60 points - three per incident - for the offences. Carney already had six points.
Imagine declaring that on your insurance renewal. The reason I was prompted to post this thread, however, concerns her wonderful legal defence. I'm still scratching my head.
Lawyer said:
Defending Carney, lawyer Nicky Johnson told court many other drivers were caught speeding on the same stretch between June and August 2019.
Mrs Johnson said: "I understand this might cause some alarm considering the large number of offences in a two month period, and this may raise concern in the face of repeat offending with no regard for the restrictions in place.
"In the face of it, she wasn’t aware of the fact she had fully flouted the speed limit because of a delay in her receiving the summons.
"The reason for that is because the vehicle she was driving in all of these offences is a leased vehicle, which she has been the registered keeper for, for a period of two years.
"All the summonses were sent to the lease company and not directed to her in the first instance. That caused a delay.
"Regrettably, after further enquiries at Audi, they received a number of summonses and sent them back to the relevant road traffic unit, who then sent it to her mother’s address."
The court heard the bulk of the summonses arrived at the same time. Carney was not aware any offences had been committed.
So she wasn't aware she'd committed any offences, because she hadn't yet received summonses? Travelling at 80mph, far in excess of others on the road alongside her, and passing speed limit signs at regular intervals, apparently wasn't a clue? Did the defence just admit to driving without due care and attention? Surely most road users don't rely on the arrival of a summons to inform them whether they're driving at the appropriate speed for a given stretch of road? I would suggest that rather, until the arrival of said summonses, she simply wasn't aware she had been caught. A significant difference, and not something I'd expect my defence brief to spew on my behalf (without talking me into even more trouble).Mrs Johnson said: "I understand this might cause some alarm considering the large number of offences in a two month period, and this may raise concern in the face of repeat offending with no regard for the restrictions in place.
"In the face of it, she wasn’t aware of the fact she had fully flouted the speed limit because of a delay in her receiving the summons.
"The reason for that is because the vehicle she was driving in all of these offences is a leased vehicle, which she has been the registered keeper for, for a period of two years.
"All the summonses were sent to the lease company and not directed to her in the first instance. That caused a delay.
"Regrettably, after further enquiries at Audi, they received a number of summonses and sent them back to the relevant road traffic unit, who then sent it to her mother’s address."
The court heard the bulk of the summonses arrived at the same time. Carney was not aware any offences had been committed.
It continues:
Lawyer said:
“Since the offences occurred, she was offered by one of the summons to take part in a road traffic speed awareness course, and she completed that in December last year.
“She was proactive.
“The majority of the speeds are under 70mph, had the speed limit been in place, it would have been fine.
So had the road been subject to a 70mph limit she'd have been OK (for some of the offences), but it wasn't - so she isn't. Um... wut? Isn't that somewhat akin to saying had the goods at the off licence been free of charge, my client wouldn't currently be in the dock for shoplifting? “She was proactive.
“The majority of the speeds are under 70mph, had the speed limit been in place, it would have been fine.
There's a reason AGTLaw's number is in my phone (just in case). I think I shall give this other purveyor of public defence a wide berth should I ever require such services. No particular input sought. This just raised an eyebrow and I thought if it was posted in GG it'd only get moved here anyway.
I don't know the circumstances, but if it's true that an unusually large number of drivers were caught by this temporary limit, perhaps there were issues with the signage/gantries etc? And was it it an unnecessary limit for imaginary roadworks which everyone was ignoring?
Although 'was she fit' is probably the most likely explanation.
Although 'was she fit' is probably the most likely explanation.
From my understanding, and I've been away from the job for 15 years, and out of prosecutions for 8 years longer, the defence is to the automatic totting up ban. To extend it to this number of offences is not what the provision was meant to cover.
Defences will try anything. That's what they do. I used to get nervous before a case where the evidence was overwhelming because I knew that the defence would be a hail mary and difficult to prepare for.
Defences will try anything. That's what they do. I used to get nervous before a case where the evidence was overwhelming because I knew that the defence would be a hail mary and difficult to prepare for.
Without looking in the law book.
There was and I still believe it still applies a rule that says...
In order to be disqualified you had to have on your license the required number of points to be disqualified for the offence that you have been convicted on. She did not have enough points.
IE. She had six point so she knew she need six to get disqualified.
She was at court for multiple offence but each where for 3 points so that takes her to nine points only. All the offence only count as 3 point for the purpose of disqualification.
I will concede to an AGLAW on this as it is a long time since I came across this rule.
There was and I still believe it still applies a rule that says...
In order to be disqualified you had to have on your license the required number of points to be disqualified for the offence that you have been convicted on. She did not have enough points.
IE. She had six point so she knew she need six to get disqualified.
She was at court for multiple offence but each where for 3 points so that takes her to nine points only. All the offence only count as 3 point for the purpose of disqualification.
I will concede to an AGLAW on this as it is a long time since I came across this rule.
Most off that is clearly incorrect B*****s coupled with pbad reporting. Lot of Summons, don’t think so, caused a delay because it was a lease car even though she was the registered keeper the summons went to the lease co, don’t think so, one of the summons offered a course, don’t think so.
Shocking journalism, the only way to find out what really went on is to read the court transcripts
Shocking journalism, the only way to find out what really went on is to read the court transcripts
Wouldn’t go so far as saying fit. How does not bad sound.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.liverpoolecho.c...
Beaten to it I see
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.liverpoolecho.c...
Beaten to it I see
king mess she has made of her face. What is it with people these days that think these cosmetic treatments (Botox etc) do anything other than make you look like a freak. Olas said:
she looks like she fights alot, judging by the apparent swelling from being repeatedly punched in the mouth. its proably the scouse accent, they all get punched in the mouth for sounding so bad.
I live in Liverpool and my children are therefore 'Scouse'. Step 1: slag off the OP is complete. Luckily Liverpool has a university, so I'm aware that 'a lot' is two words, and I can start my sentences with a capital letter. I also, and this is uncommon I know, can use an apostrophe correctly. It also means I can read a linked article, which states the defendant in question is from Widnes not Liverpool, and therefore isn't a Scouser. 1/10, must try harder.
rainmakerraw said:
Olas said:
she looks like she fights alot, judging by the apparent swelling from being repeatedly punched in the mouth. its proably the scouse accent, they all get punched in the mouth for sounding so bad.
I live in Liverpool and my children are therefore 'Scouse'. Step 1: slag off the OP is complete. Luckily Liverpool has a university, so I'm aware that 'a lot' is two words, and I can start my sentences with a capital letter. I also, and this is uncommon I know, can use an apostrophe correctly. It also means I can read a linked article, which states the defendant in question is from Widnes not Liverpool, and therefore isn't a Scouser. 1/10, must try harder.
Fun fact, I grew up on Dundalk road (where our protagonist lives) and regularly used to play on and around the tip there. Then the miserable council closed it, something to do with environmental concerns, and converted it into a golf course until someone else, many years later, discovered the whole place was contaminated with arsenic.
This wasn’t a Special Reasons case; ss. 34 and 44 RTOA 1988. The chairman apparently mentioned special reasons but if so then he / his clerk misdirected themselves if they thought special reasons applied here. Special reasons cases pertain to the offence(s) rather than the offender. E.g. a genuine emergency.
This was actually an “exceptional hardship” case; s. 35(4) RTOA 1988. I argued a very similar case in which, from memory, 9 or 10 NIPs were received for offences within a couple of weeks - the same ‘speed on green’ camera. The court accepted that there would be “exceptional hardship” if disqualified and endorsed 27 points (or similar) but no disqualification.
Kestral is probably thinking of a different situation where multiple offences are committed “on the same occasion” and the court endorses penalty points for only one of multiple offences; see s. 28 RTOA 1988.
This was actually an “exceptional hardship” case; s. 35(4) RTOA 1988. I argued a very similar case in which, from memory, 9 or 10 NIPs were received for offences within a couple of weeks - the same ‘speed on green’ camera. The court accepted that there would be “exceptional hardship” if disqualified and endorsed 27 points (or similar) but no disqualification.
Kestral is probably thinking of a different situation where multiple offences are committed “on the same occasion” and the court endorses penalty points for only one of multiple offences; see s. 28 RTOA 1988.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff