The issue in this case related specifically to the conversation which took place between our client and his friend, when he gave him permission to drive the vehicle.  Client was adamant that he asked his friend whether he had insurance to drive the vehicle, as his own insurance would not cover his friend, and his friend confirmed that he did have such insurance.  Our client therefore agreed to lend his friend the vehicle on the condition that he had his own valid insurance to cover him

Our client entered a not guilty plea by post indicating his defence and the matter was adjourned for trial at Luton Magistrates’ Court on the 25^th of April 2012, when client, together with his wife, gave evidence regarding the circumstances in which his vehicle was lent to his friend. Their evidence was accepted by the Magistrates and he was acquitted of the charge.

The key issue in this case was whether when client had lent the vehicle to his friend he made it conditional on him having insurance, in which case there was no permission, as per the case of Newbury, or whether he had lent the vehicle to his friend in the mistaken belief that he was insured, in which case he was guilty of the charge, as per the case of Baugh.

This case highlights the complex legal issues that can arise in cases of no insurance and the importance of going through, in detail, with an experienced road traffic solicitor the precise circumstances which took place in order that you can be fully and properly advised as to the law and options in each case.

Our clients who are husband and wife faced charges of driving with no insurance and permitting driving with no insurance.  The circumstances were that Mr. X lost his bank card and therefore cancelled it with the bank and ordered a replacement. Unbeknown to him his insurance direct debits were linked to that old card and therefore were automatically cancelled by the bank. No notification was received from the insurance company detailing cancellation of the policy as they had recently moved address.

Mr. X was driving the vehicle through his local town on the day in question in August 2011, when he was stopped by police officers who carried out insurance checks and explained to him that he was driving with no insurance and would therefore be reported for the offence.  They also reported his wife who was a passenger in the car and the registered keeper for the offence of permitting driving with no insurance.

We represented both clients at Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court on the 21^st of March 2012, when we made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service based on the circumstances detailed above, that Mr X was in control of the insurance payments and they had another fully insured car available to drive, and managed to persuade them to withdraw the charge against Mrs. X of permitting driving with no insurance.  Mr. X pleaded guilty to the charge of driving with no insurance, which is a strict liability offence and his case was adjourned for a “Special Reasons” argument to be put forward for no penalty points to be imposed. This offence (depending on the circumstances) would usually carry 6 penalty points.

There is no set list as to what amounts to a Special Reason but, in order to fulfil the criteria, the Special Reasons put forward must be: -

1. A mitigating or extenuating circumstance

2. It must not amount in law to a defence to the allegation

3. It must be directly connected to the commission of the offence

4. It must be something that the Court ought to take into consideration when deciding what punishment to impose.

The Special Reasons argument in this case took place at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on the 5^th of April 2012 when the position regarding the bank cancelling the direct debits was explained and this was accepted by the Magistrates and therefore no penalty points were endorsed on Mr X’s licence.

This once again highlights the difficult everyday insurance issues that can arise and how you can inadvertently break the law. It further highlights the importance of instructing a solicitor with expertise in Road Traffic matters to give you detailed advice from the outset of your case.

In January 2012 he was arrested for criminal damage to a door, which offence was not only witnessed by a police officer, but also captured on CCTV. He chose to be interviewed without a solicitor. He was charged with criminal damage and bailed to court.  Had he had a solicitor at the police station, he or she would have been able to make appropriate representations and hopefully persuaded the police to bail the client with a condition of paying for the damage to the door with a view to receiving a caution ultimately at the bail return.

As it turned out, while waiting for the court hearing to come up the client paid for the damage, and when the case came before the magistrates court we urged the prosecuting lawyer to consider whether a caution might still be appropriate. The lawyer consulted with the police and agreed to adjourn the case for a week with an indication that a caution might well be the appropriate outcome.

The case came back before the magistrates a week later, when the prosecutor said that the police had changed their minds and had decided not to caution but to continue with the prosecution.  We managed to persuade the court to grant a further week’s adjournment and made strenuous representations that as certain indications for a caution had been given the previous week, it would now be very unfair to proceed with the case.

Following this further adjournment, representations were made to a senior prosecutor who agreed that a caution was appropriate and so the client was cautioned and the charge withdrawn.

We were contacted by our client who had been asked by the police to attend at Aberystwyth Police Station following the execution of a warrant at his address under the Misuse of Drugs Act, whereby they had recovered a small quantity of cannabis.

We duly attended with our client at the police station on 28^th November 2011.  Having obtained disclosure from the police it was clear that they did not have a copy of the warrant (issued by the Magistrates) with them when they executed the search at his address and it had only been produced at a later date.  We therefore advised our client during interview to make a short prepared statement setting this out and neither accepting nor denying whether the drugs found belonged to him.  Following interview, he was charged with possession of cannabis and bailed to attend Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on the 21^st December 2011.

At Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on the 21^st December 2011 representations were made to the prosecution regarding this case and that the evidence obtained should be excluded under the PACE codes of conduct due to the deficiencies with the warrant.  Having considered the position and taken advice from his superior, the CPS lawyer decided to withdraw the proceedings and our client was released from court.

This case highlights the importance of having a solicitor with you at the police station to obtain full disclosure from the police regarding the evidence held and then to give you the appropriate legal advice before answering questions during interview.  Had client been in attendance without a solicitor, it is likely that he would have answered all police questions which may have led to an admission of guilt which could have been used against him to prove the case at court and led to a criminal conviction.

This was a difficult case and highlighted the issues that can arise in family situations.  The police contacted our client following a road traffic accident involving client’s son and upon speaking to them, as she did not wish her son to get into trouble for taking the vehicle without consent, she told the police officer that he had asked her consent to drive the car.  Shortly afterwards she changed her mind and contacted the police to tell them the truth and confirm that he did not in fact have her consent.  Despite this, client was summoned to court for permitting her son to drive with no insurance, and her son was summonsed quite separately for driving with no insurance and driving without due care and attention.

Both matters came to Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court on the 28^th of September 2011, when client’s son pleaded guilty to the charges of driving with no insurance and driving without due care and attention, and client pleaded not guilty to the charge of permitting her son to drive the vehicle without insurance.

The matter was adjourned for a pre-trial review hearing, when the issues in this case were decided on and the matter finally came to trial on the 29^th of November 2011 at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court.

On this occasion, after lengthy negotiations with the prosecution, bearing in mind the relatively weak evidence of the police officer, we persuaded the Crown to offer no evidence in terms of the charge of permitting no insurance (and a lesser alternative charge of obstruction was laid and our client pleaded to this).  This was a very good result for client, as it avoided any penalty points on her licence and thus avoided increased insurance premiums. She  also avoided the significant fine that would come with being found guilty for permitting driving with no insurance.  Furthermore, there was the potential issue had she been  found guilty, of a subsequent personal injury claim against her in respect of the road traffic accident.

This case highlights the difficult issues that can arise in family situations such as this and the importance of a skilled and experienced solicitor to put forward arguments and submissions on your behalf.

He had taken out an online insurance policy for his vehicle with Budget insurance.

When he was stopped by the police on the 8^th of February 2011, he explained to the police that he had full insurance and was asked to provide his documents within seven days.  The following day he contacted his insurance company and they said there had been a problem with setting up the direct debit payments and that the bank had stopped the direct debit.  Due to problems at client’s address he had not received the post and therefore he was technically driving with no insurance.  He explained the position over the phone to Budget insurance and they agreed to reinstate his direct debit payments and he made a one-off payment to them to cover the last period.  However, they stated that he was not insured for the incident on the 8^th of February.

Client was stopped again by the police on the 29^th of March and was asked to produce his documents.  He again explained to the police that he was insured and it had cost him a lot to reinsure last time.  He contacted his insurance company on the spot who explained that they had received a direct debit from him this time but by the time they’d come to process it the deadline for setting up the policy had expired and therefore the policy again had been suspended.  He again paid a significant sum of money over the phone to reinstate the policy but the insurance company would not cover him for the 29^th of March.  Again, due to him not receiving post at his address client had not received the letter sent out by the insurance company informing him that the policy had been suspended (letter dated the 7^th of March 2011).

We attended with client at Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court on the 14^th of September 2011, when he pleaded guilty to both charges of driving with no insurance and the matter was adjourned for a special reasons argument and listed at Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on the 18^th of November 2011.

In this case, client was potentially facing the imposition of twelve penalty points for two instances of driving without insurance and therefore was liable to lose his licence under the totting-up procedure.

This matter was of upmost importance to client, as he lived in a rural and remote area and required his vehicle for work purposes and without it would inevitably lose his job and this would have significant financial consequences for him.

At court on the 18^th of November 2011, we successfully argued special reasons in terms of the second instance of driving without insurance, as client had specifically contacted the insurance company and made the payment on the 8^th of February and there was documentary evidence from his bank confirming this.  Furthermore, client gave evidence on oath confirming that he had not received any of the correspondence from the insurance company, and following retiring to consider the position the magistrates found special reasons and only six penalty points were imposed on client’s licence for the first instance on the 8^th of February as it was accepted that client was under a duty to check his bank accounts between November and February and if he had done so he would have been aware that the direct debit monies had not been taken out.

This was an excellent result for client, as it ensured the retention of his licence, which was of upmost importance to him.

On applying online for insurance he had completed the question regarding his business/employment as “motor trader”. He did not add a subsidiary that he occasionally did flood assessment work.

On the day in question he was travelling in his works vehicle in relation to his motor trader work, to look at some alloy wheels which he had seen advertised, and en route he made a detour to check on a water loss job. It was during that detour that he was stopped by police who checked with his insurance company and the wording of the policy did not specifically cover him for flood damage work. The police initially did not seem particularly interested, but he subsequently received a postal summons to court and was liable to be disqualified under the totting up procedure if he received the usual 6 – 8 points for no insurance  .

Soon after being stopped our client arranged insurance with another company which covered all his business use of the vehicle at little or no extra cost.

When the case came to court we argued that there were special reasons why he should not be disqualified, namely that on that particular journey he was primarily travelling in connection with his motor trader work,and use for flood damage work was secondary. The court accepted this and did not endorse his licence.

The driver of the Hyundai notified the police of the accident and immediately drove around the area looking for the car which had caused the collisi0n. She identified a vehicle which she thought was the vehicle in question and she identified the registration number as being like the number she partially remembered from the collision.She told the police of the car she had identified.

The police subsequently contacted our client who was the owner of the Suzuki and he made a statement to the police. Notwithstanding the fact that he explained to the police that he had an alibi in that he had been with his friend at the relevant time playing chess, and that there were three other persons as well as his friend who could verify this, he was charged with a number of offences. He was taken to court for driving without due care. failing to stop and failing to report an accident and  he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution seemed set on continuing the case against him and the case was adjourned for a management hearing. However at the adjourned hearing the prosecution discontinued the case and our client’s costs were paid from Central funds.

The prosecution evidence was that on the day  in question he had undertaken an unmarked police car at about 103 mph.  The unmarked police car had followed him a few miles at a speed of 90 mph. He was then stopped and questioned by the officer, and reported for driving without due care, and speeding.

When the case came before the Magistrates we submittted on his behalf that he was working as an agricultural contractor, he was of exemplary character, and that the loss of his licence would mean the loss of his job. Excellent references were provided to the court.

The Magistrates decided ,instead of disqualifying him, they would fine the client for each offence, and they endorsed his licence with five penalty points.

There was no challenge from the defence to the prosecution statements but, at the end of the prosecution case, the defence submitted:-

a)  that the summons didn’t make sense, in that it alleged that the offence was committed by “a motor vehicle, namely a trailer, drawn by a motor vehicle, namely a Scania Artic ”

It was submitted that the summons was duplicitous. We relied on the case of NFC Fording Ltd – v- DPP,  whose ratio decidendi was that separate offences were created under reg 100(1) of the Construction and Use Regs 1986. By analogy we submitted that the same principle should be applied to Sec 40 A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

b)  We also relied upon Article 6 (3) of the European Convention of Human Rights which states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language they understand, and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.

c)  It was submitted by the defence that there was no evidence that the unit or the trailer were unsuitable for the use for which they were being put by virtue of their design, construction or state of repair as the officer in the case had said that he could see no visible defects on the trailer hitch, receptor or any other part  of the Scania or trailer.

The court accepted the defence submissions, and dismissed the case, and granted the defendant his legal costs