The traffic court is the ultimate microcosm of society.
Whereas most people don't go out stealing from shops, bashing little old ladies and smashing bus shelters, a lot of otherwise law abiding people have no trouble at all with speeding or jumping red lights.
I've previously written about a fairly typical day in the traffic court, which provides a bit of context for anyone unfamiliar with such things. The court deals with those non-imprisonable, summary traffic offences that have somehow evaded completion via the Single Justice Procedure.
As previously mentioned I don't do a lot of traffic work, but I'm willing to lend a hand if they're stuck for anyone more local. Last week the call came again: "Can you help out with the traffic court? We're desperate." How could I refuse such a flattering offer?!
If you ever observe the traffic court you will notice that very few of those appearing are represented. The absence of Legal Aid funding for this sort of work means that anyone requiring representation will usually need to pay for it. The court is under a duty to assist unrepresented defendants, so the Legal Advisor will talk them through the procedure and their options in slow time.
A lot of unrepresented defendants cope admirably before the court. They listen carefully, weigh up their options and make informed decisions. Some, however, appear before the court with inaccurate preconceptions about the process and legislation. It is this second group that shall be the focus of today's article.
Mr White:
Mr White, a mechanic, appeared before the court for speeding. The police had made him a conditional offer (£100 fine, 3 points), but for whatever reason he had failed to respond to it.
According to Mr White he should never have been done in the first place, because he was only doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone. He was a bit miffed that the police hadn't offered him a speed awareness course. As someone who knows about these things, Mr White tells the court that the devices the police use are only accurate to within 2 or 3 mph. That being the case, Mr White claims he might have been driving at 33 mph at the absolute maximum.
It was put to Mr White that even 33 mph would have been exceeding the 30 mph speed limit. It was also put to him that whether his speed was 35 mph or 33 mph, it would make no difference to how the matter was sentenced.
Mr White didn't want to further argue the point, so admitted the offence.
Mr Green:
Mr Green appeared before the court for speeding. He had been driving in a rural area in the early hours of the morning, when it was still dark and there were very few cars on the road. The road was winding and bordered by tall hedges. Unbeknown to Mr Green the approaching headlights pinpricking through the hedge belonged to a police vehicle, which was double-crewed by officers A and B.
The officers immediately took the view that Mr Green was exceeding the 60 mph speed limit. Their onboard equipment supported that view, recording his speed as 72 mph. The officers turned their vehicle and accelerated to catch up with Mr Green's car. Now realising it was a police vehicle Mr Green immediately pulled over.
It transpired that Mr Green regularly drove in the early hours of the morning. It also transpired that this was not the first time he had been stopped by the police when doing so. Mr Green was not happy at being stopped by the police, claiming he was the subject of some sort of witch hunt. The officers in question had never had any dealings with Mr Green, but according to him they were still part of the same gang. Reading between the lines, I get the distinct impression Mr Green was combative with the officers.
Mr Green denied speeding on the basis that if he was going too fast, the officers must have been going even faster in order to catch up with him. He also objected to the fact that officer A took the lead during the stop, but it was officer B who reported him for the offence. Mr Green denied the allegation and wanted his day in court.
Mr Black:
Mr Black appeared before the court for failing to identify the driver of a vehicle. He already had 8 points on his licence, so the stakes were high. Mr Black confirmed that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle and was the only one who drove it. However, this contradicted earlier correspondence with the court in which he said that he had failed to respond to the section 172 notice because he wasn't sure who was driving at the time it was clocked speeding.
Astonishingly, Mr Black tried to alter his position again by saying that he never saw the section 172 notice until it was too late because he was rarely at home. The Legal Advisor informed Mr Black that even if he hadn't seen the notice, it had been correctly served if it had been posted first class to his address as registered keeper.
"So what happens now?" asked Mr Black. He was told that if he admitted the offence then his licence would be endorsed with 6 penalty points and he would be disqualified for 6 months under the totting up rule.
The colour draining from Mr Black's face, he asked "what if I'd admitted speeding?" He was told that he would have received 3 penalty points on his licence. "Can I just admit the speeding please?" enquired Mr Black.
At that stage I interjected: "Given the passage of time, the speeding option is no longer available. In any event, you've just told the court that you don't know who was driving at the time so we wouldn't be prepared to accept a guilty plea to that matter."
The Legal Advisor highlighted the possibility of an exceptional hardship application, which might allow Mr Black to avoid disqualification despite having accrued 12 or more points on his licence. There followed some conversation about Mr Black's circumstances, which were unlikely to amount to exceptional hardship.
Resigned to the fact he would be making alternative transport arrangements for the next 6 months, Mr Black begrudgingly admitted failing to identify the driver of a vehicle. His licence was endorsed with 6 points and he was disqualified as a totter.
Of course he would not have been disqualified had he diligently completed the paperwork in the first place.
Further reading:
Traffic Law in England, Wales and Scotland (aff. link), by K. M. Hughes.
Creating articles can be thirsty work:
If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by
buying a coffee.
