Interpreting Road Traffic Act

Jun 15, 2015

Interpreting Road Traffic Act

Our client was accused of an offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

We have looked at the entire case. It was a minor incident of which the complainant was compensated by our client’s insurance. Our client cooperated with his insurance company and with the prosecution.

We sent a letter to the prosecution warning them that on the balance of probabilities our client would win. We informed the prosecution that if they failed to discontinue with the allegation then they would end up paying our client’s legal cost.

As usual, the prosecution did not take any interest in our costs warning letter. The prosecution attended the hearing without preparation.

Mrs C Copping drafted, filed and served a detailed witness statement and a well paginated trial bundle.

Mr J Patel cross-examined the officer-in-charge of this case who admitted that he did not make any effort to contact our client personally despite all the opportunities he had in hand.

Our client gave evidence that he lived in shared accommodation; he also said that receiving post can be difficult as the majority of the post kept going missing.

Mr J Patel made submissions under section 172 (7) (b) of the RTA 1988. The copy of the relevant Act can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

After 30 minutes deliberation the Magistrates Court came back with a verdict of acquittal.

As per our client’s instructions we immediately claimed costs for the preparation and attendance at trial from Central Funds.

Legal Advice Form

If you are seeking legal advice then please fill in the form below. Please note that our system will locate your IP address.

11 + 5 =