79 in a 50 - Daughter having siezure in car

[BO55 VXR]

Posted on behalf of a non-member

Anon said:

Here's the story

I have a pending speeding. 79mph on a motway 50mph zone. I have a clean licence and was driving in perfect conditions to the 7 Bridge tolls because my disabled daughter was having a severe epileptic fit. I wanted to get somewhere where first aid could be given if needed. This all happened last August. Yes last August.

Despite extensive correspondence with the police and evidence of my daughter's condition, they decide to proceed to bring it before magistrates "because of the speed involved".

I hear nothing, until 2 weeks ago where i get a notice saying the case has been adjourned for Cwmbran the following week. So the case had appareently started without me! I was unable to attend the following week because of work and family commitments and reeturned the paperwork to say proceed without me. I live in Surrey, not Wales.

The following week i call the court to find out the result. To be told that I was found guilty and the magistrates are considering a ban. And that I have to be present at the 'sentencing'. So now I have to travel to the Welsh Mountains, with family in tow, including my dissabled daughter, in leiu of the fact i may get a ban.

Does this seem fair, or just to you guys? Any of it? Do you think i will be banned? An for how long?

[jasandjules]

Was the NIP received in 14 days?
I would be off to the press with this one for starters......

[trax]

Very sad.

Unlike rape, assault and theft, which in many cases the CPS say its not in the Public Interest to pursue the case, they never come up with this desision with speeding offenses.

[mr_annie_vxr]

In this case it would have been for the person to attend court and explain the mitigation involved. It is not down to the police to decide on the merits of that. In the same way many self defence arguments are decided in court rather than by the police. Playing devils advocate though if your driving at 79 in a 50 whilst trying to look after someone having a severe epileptic fit I would suggest there could be safety issues involved. The toll booths would be no better equipped than anywhere to deal with a medical incident. I would have thought it best to have pulled over in a safe place and dial 999.
It sounds awful and if stopped there and then an officer would most likely have used discretion as it would be self evident what is happening. The problem here is they never went to court so the reasons would not have been heard. As such they did not contest the matter.
The person needs to appeal the decision and speak to a reputable solicitor.

[mickk]

jasandjules said:

I would be off to the press with this one for starters......

You will probably get loads of advice on this one. But this has got to be the way forward

[andmole]

mickk said:

jasandjules said:

I would be off to the press with this one for starters......

You will probably get loads of advice on this one. But this has got to be the way forward

Agree, and get the name of the magistrate concerned, that should be a matter of public record, nail the bd. And make sure the press are present when the next stage of the court process takes place.

[becca_viola]

I'd have pulled over and dialled 999 too. You can't do airway management &c at 79mph. Stop and look after her yourself, surely - presumably if dangerous fits are common then they'd have diazepam pr to administer or similar; and I know that the deal with that is to get it in as soon as possible after it becomes apparent that it's needed.

[eccles]

mr_annie_vxr said:

In this case it would have been for the person to attend court and explain the mitigation involved. It is not down to the police to decide on the merits of that. In the same way many self defence arguments are decided in court rather than by the police. Playing devils advocate though if your driving at 79 in a 50 whilst trying to look after someone having a severe epileptic fit I would suggest there could be safety issues involved. The toll booths would be no better equipped than anywhere to deal with a medical incident. I would have thought it best to have pulled over in a safe place and dial 999.
It sounds awful and if stopped there and then an officer would most likely have used discretion as it would be self evident what is happening. The problem here is they never went to court so the reasons would not have been heard. As such they did not contest the matter.
The person needs to appeal the decision and speak to a reputable solicitor.

i totally agree, if you wish to fight something, you have to turn up in person, or have a soliciter there to represent you.
if it was me, and it was that much of an emergency i don't think i'd have been pootling along at 79mph, i'd have been going flat out.

[herewego]

If it had actually been an emergency then he would have been taking her to hospital but that doesn’t appear to have been the case. Had he taken her to hospital there would be some evidence of emergency. He can’t just say, oh there was a bit of a flap please let me off.

[martind]

BO55 VXR said:

Posted on behalf of a non-member

Anon said:

Here's the story

79mph on a motway 50mph zone. I have a clean licence and was driving in perfect conditions to the 7 Bridge tolls because my disabled daughter was having a severe epileptic fit.

Isn't the 50mph section only the last 1/2 mile at most, leading up to the toll booths ? which are nearly 2 miles after the bridge ?
So doing 79 for the last 1/2 mile instead of 50 would save 10 seconds at most, was it that much of an emergency ? in which case as others have said, why not stop on the hard shoulder ?

[andmole]

Back off everybody, for a start the 50 may have been a temporary restriction nowhere near where you think it is. Secondly ask yourself just how rational you may have been if it was your child in the car. And finally we don't have all the necessary facts from the post given.

How about the benefit of the doubt?

Or have we suddenly become in favour of the "guilty until proven innocent" approach, something that most people cry foul about when it applies to automatic speed enforcement and the dodgyscope 20-20.

It's possible that the courts had more info, and were thus able to make the judgement that they did. If this is the case they should have no problem standing up to public scrutiny, if they have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide. Or do you think they might not like having that one thrown back at them?

[ATG]

But he was guilty of speeding. He doesn't contest that. He says there were mitigating circumstances, but no one seems to have told that to the magistrates (so why anyone thinks the magistrates should be named and shamed, I can't imagine.) Going to the press seems completely pointless at this stage. He should go talk to a solicitor and see what his options are. CAn he still make representations to the magistrates? Can he appeal the decision?

[vonhosen]

ATG said:

But he was guilty of speeding. He doesn't contest that. He says there were mitigating circumstances, but no one seems to have told that to the magistrates (so why anyone thinks the magistrates should be named and shamed, I can't imagine.) Going to the press seems completely pointless at this stage. He should go talk to a solicitor and see what his options are. CAn he still make representations to the magistrates? Can he appeal the decision?

Normally within 21 days.

[BO55 VXR]

The guy did say they were "Considering" banning him and therefore he needs to be present... would this then not be the time to present is mitigating circumstances? and any communications he had with the police to try to explain the situation.

If the police did not present these communications to the court, then surely that is a case of witholding evidence. (or am I talking B.S., its been know to happen )

Edited by BO55 VXR on Sunday 4th March 12:48

[vonhosen]

BO55 VXR said:

The guy did say they were "Considering" banning him and therefore he needs to be present... would this then not be the time to present is mitigating circumstances? and any communications he had with the police to try to explain the situation.

If the police did not present these communications to the court, then surely that is a case of witholding evidence. (or am I talking B.S., its been know to happen )

He has been convicted in his absence by the sound of it. If he attends & just mitigates that will only be mitigation for sentence not convcition.

[BO55 VXR]

But at least he may get away with fine/points rather than a ban, as it would obviously put hardship on him due to disabled daugher.

[andmole]

ATG said:

But he was guilty of speeding. He doesn't contest that. He says there were mitigating circumstances, but no one seems to have told that to the magistrates (so why anyone thinks the magistrates should be named and shamed, I can't imagine.) Going to the press seems completely pointless at this stage. He should go talk to a solicitor and see what his options are. CAn he still make representations to the magistrates? Can he appeal the decision?

Please read what I actually wrote, my post was full of conditional language, and IF all the circumstances POSSIBLE happened in ONE way, then an approach to the press would be appropriate. I was making the point in my recent post that we don't have all the facts from the information given to be making the sort of snap judgements that some posters have done.

I am not making those judgements, I am suggesting one possible course of action, (one that I happen to think appropriate, given the balance of probabilities and the inherrent bias against the motorist in the legal system), but I am not certain, and if I have given that impression then I apologise.

I am sick and tired of people reading my posts without due care and attention.

[Mad Moggie2]

BO55 VXR said:

Posted on behalf of a non-member

Anon said:

Here's the story

I have a pending speeding. 79mph on a motway 50mph zone. I have a clean licence and was driving in perfect conditions to the 7 Bridge tolls because my disabled daughter was having a severe epileptic fit. I wanted to get somewhere where first aid could be given if needed. This all happened last August. Yes last August.

Despite extensive correspondence with the police and evidence of my daughter's condition, they decide to proceed to bring it before magistrates "because of the speed involved".

I hear nothing, until 2 weeks ago where i get a notice saying the case has been adjourned for Cwmbran the following week. So the case had appareently started without me! I was unable to attend the following week because of work and family commitments and reeturned the paperwork to say proceed without me. I live in Surrey, not Wales.

The following week i call the court to find out the result. To be told that I was found guilty and the magistrates are considering a ban. And that I have to be present at the 'sentencing'. So now I have to travel to the Welsh Mountains, with family in tow, including my dissabled daughter, in leiu of the fact i may get a ban.

Does this seem fair, or just to you guys? Any of it? Do you think i will be banned? An for how long?

Possibly he knew of somewhere where he could have pulled in? Not sure if there is a restricted hard shoulder in that area. It is some time since I last drove in that area.

I would have made the effort to be there in court to argue my case regardless of work committments and a family should understand that something like a driving ban - which ultimately affects them as well - is serious enough to forego "family commitments" as well. Sorry if that comes across as harsh - but this was a matter which did require arguing a case for mitigation due to circumstances at the time. I am sure that if this guy now put forward a strong case why a ban would be unfair and cause even more hardship to his family .. then he may well receive points and a whopping fine and costs.


As for epileptic episode.. I would have pulled over immediately or used my hands-free phone to dial for help if no hard shoulder or lay-by nearby.

All types of seizure require minimum of fuss and a positive dealing with the situation. I would have stopped because of a need to prevent banging head against anything hard ..loosening clothing around the neck area. You really need an ambulance if the fit continues for longer than 5 minutes or you have a series of them.



There is "tonic-clonic or grand mal" which lasts for a 1-5 minutes.. with convulsions.


(suspect the driver's daughter might have been in the throes of this since he describes it as "severe". If nearest stopping place was at the toll booths .. can understand his making for this.. but I given the situiation I would still have kept it steady at the lower speed. But then .. people react differently with panic and stress taking over.)



"absence or petit mal" - lasting seconds and child will stare blankly

and

"myclonic" - limbs and trunk jerk

in addition to parital seizures .. which can be abnormal movements, and complete lack of response to you.

Rule of thumb... treat the episodes as "normal" and guide the child to normal development of his/her life.

[J500ANT]

One wonders whether the video shows any sort of kerfuffle in the car which may aid the "OP" in his mitigation, or whether that would then be classed as DWDCA.

And quite why would the "OP" need to drag his family to Wales? I doubt they need to be present PLUS Cwmbran is hardly "in the Welsh mountains".......

Edited by J500ANT on Sunday 4th March 14:44

[gilbertd]

Something similar came up last year. There is an exemption for vehicles being used for 'ambulance purposes'. At the time there was a lot of discussion over what this meant but if the accused turns up at court and points out that under Sec ?? of the Road Traffic Act ???? Can't remeber exact section, but I'm sure somebody will come up with it), a vehicle was being used for ambulance purposes at the time, it is quite possible the magistrates will look very favourably on it. In fact, had this argument been used at the time of the first hearing, there is a pretty good chance that he would not have been convicted in the first place.

Remember, magistrates are only human and most of then hate speed cameras/scamera partnerships just as much as the rest of us.