Crime Solicitors

The courts seem to be showing increasing impatience with drivers who attempt to overturn convictions for speeding by raising technical objections to them.

Recently, an application was made by a driver convicted of exceeding a temporary 30 mph limit. A number of issues were raised concerning the measuring device which had been used to record the driver’s speed. However, at the very end of the proceedings, during the closing speech, it was argued that the signage relating to the temporary speed limit was a factor in the case and that this did not comply with the relevant legislation. This claim had not been submitted in earlier evidence, during which the driver had argued that there was insufficient evidence that the speed measuring device had been adequately tested.

The magistrates hearing the case considered that the prosecution must have the chance to address the issues raised by the new evidence, so they adjourned the case part-heard for this purpose. The driver claimed that this showed partiality and that the magistrates were acting with bias against him. He considered that they were ‘trying to convict him’.

The court would have none of it. The magistrates were entitled as a matter of law to adjourn the case. The driver had attempted to ‘ambush’ the prosecution case by raising issues after the prosecution case had closed.

Says Duncan Lewis & Co, “If a defendant fails to identify issues at an early stage in the proceedings that he wishes to raise later on, he cannot seek to derive an advantage from that by raising them in his final arguments, leaving the prosecution no opportunity to deal with the points raised.”

Partner Note
R (on the application of Lawson) v Stafford Magistrates Court 3, October 2007. Reported in the Law Society’s Gazette, 18 October 2007.