Need advice 109 mph M1 Southbound J3, London
Discussion
Hi. My boyfriend has just received a summons saying his offence last September in a BMW was driving dangerously contrary to Section 2 of the RTA 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Is this different to them saying he was speeding (109 mph)?
He also had two illegal front tyres which have not been mentioned on the summons - will he get another summons for those? He had no points on his license. Hearing is in April. Any ideas what he is likely to face in terms of bans, fines or possible imprisonment?
He had his parents in the back as he was trying to get to a central london restaurant reservation as a birthday treat for his mum - needless to say not a great start to her special day, witnessing her son getting caught by a laser from the Met Police and pulled over!
All help/advice greatly appreciated. Is it better that he represents himself as a lot of posters seem to have done?
Thanks
He also had two illegal front tyres which have not been mentioned on the summons - will he get another summons for those? He had no points on his license. Hearing is in April. Any ideas what he is likely to face in terms of bans, fines or possible imprisonment?
He had his parents in the back as he was trying to get to a central london restaurant reservation as a birthday treat for his mum - needless to say not a great start to her special day, witnessing her son getting caught by a laser from the Met Police and pulled over!
All help/advice greatly appreciated. Is it better that he represents himself as a lot of posters seem to have done?
Thanks
Some of the lawyers on here may correct me if I am wrong, but DD is an indictable offence and speeding is only a summary offence. An indictable offence carries a criminal record with it - at a minimum. The mags have the power to impose up to a 2 year custodial in severe cases. (& up to a £5k) fine.
I'd suggest he seeks legal representation. See if you can plea bargain for a charge of driving without due care & attention. This is a summary offence and doesn't carry any potential custodial penalties or a criminal record.
I'd suggest he seeks legal representation. See if you can plea bargain for a charge of driving without due care & attention. This is a summary offence and doesn't carry any potential custodial penalties or a criminal record.
oh well! Just called a freephone solicitor chap who reckons proving dangerous driving is very difficult so we should plea bargain driving without due care once we have the evidence of the whole thing from the police. thought there was something in the air today - female intuition I guess!
ca092003 said:
109 + 2 bald tyres. Silly boy!
tell me about it! all to make a dinner reservation, although he hadn't been driving the car for long and probably should have taken longer to inspect it b4 setting out then maybe he would have taken the train or a taxi as the tyres were too worn!
bobbins said:
How worn were the tyres - it they were marginal then then they may not proceed with that offence?
not sure but they were replaced with new ones directly after the incident - do you think that will go in his favour at all- that as soon as he was made aware he rectified the situation?
Gradu said:
Just called a freephone solicitor chap who reckons proving dangerous driving is very difficult so we should plea bargain driving without due care once we have the evidence of the whole thing from the police.
Was it actually a solicitor you talked to though, or just someone in a call centre, with a "bit of legal knowledge"?
I'd be wary about getting your hopes up at the moment, and my advice (if you do want to fight this) is to look for a specialist motoring solicitor. Ask friends, family, colleagues - personal recommendation is usually the best way to find a reputable person in any trade.
Unfortunately, this may cost a lot of money, and take a lot of time.
The "I didn't know" defence won't be any use with regard to the tyres - it's the driver's responsibuility to always ensure his or her vehicle is roadworthy/taxed/insured etc etc - ignorance is no defence.
ca092003 said:
109 + 2 bald tyres. Silly boy!
They are not bald tyres, they are slicks
The tyres could not have been badly worn if the BiB let him drive on without changing them. Did they?
Good luck for your b/f Gradu. I hope he doesn't get hit too hard for the 109. Keep us updated
Edited to add: Just noticed Gradu said 'illegal' not bald - this makes a big difference
>> Edited by supraman2954 on Wednesday 16th February 13:58
Gradu said:
Money is something we don't have right now. Is legal aid available to help with this type of thing?
I don't think legal aid is avaiable for this type of offence, but it may be worth trying the Yellow Pages and ringing a few solicitors to see if you can get an initial, free, face to face consultation.
Does your other half have any kind of legal cover on his insurance? It might be worth reading the small print in his policy (you may wish to avoid ringing them and asking, as this may set alarm bells going if he hasn't already declared the upcoming case to them, which he may be obliged to do under the terms of his policy).
Fat Audi 80 said:
109 + 2 bald tyres. Silly boy!
Fantastically helpflul as usual
Fat Audi 80's Mum said:
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all...."
Cheers,
Steve
Don't agree with your mum, I'm afraid. Who put her in charge of free speech?
Now in transpires that not only was he speeding, had 2 bald tyres but he was also unfamiliar with the car. And all of this in order to make a restaurant reservation.
I will always be the first to defend speed over the limit where is is done safely.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff