Skip to main content

Judges get it wrong too

Royal Courts of Justice - hopefully they all know the law here

Motoring law is a niche area of criminal law that not every criminal solicitor or barrister properly understands.  It’s no great surprise.  I wouldn’t want to get involved in a serious fraud case because, although I’m an experienced criminal solicitor who has conducted minor fraud trials in the distant past, I do not have the expertise to properly represent somebody facing trial in a major fraud case.

Motoring law, and the drink driving offences I mostly handle, is every bit as complex as any other area of law and can be a minefield for the solicitor who doesn’t fully understand it.  That applies every bit as much to courts as it does to defence or prosecution solicitors.

Recently, I was representing a client who I knew had a previous conviction for failing to provide a specimen of breath at the roadside.  So, I wasn’t surprised to see that on his list of previous convictions, what did surprise me is that he had been disqualified from driving for 18-months.  I told the court that simply could not be correct – the court’s legal advisor looked confused and told me that an 18-month disqualification is a normal sentence for failing to provide.  I confess to feeling a sigh rising inside me that I managed to suppress long enough to explain to both the magistrates and their legal advisor that there are two types of failing to provide: the most common one is failing to provide at the police station and often results in 18-month driving bans.  However, the second type is very rare (so rare I’ve never come across another) and is relevant where the suspect fails to provide at the roadside.  The starting point for that offence is 4 penalty points not any disqualification.  My client had been convicted of the second offence and had no other convictions whatsoever.  While it's possible for a court to impose a discretionary disqualification, I cannot think of circumstances in which the offence could be so drastically aggravated to move from 4 penalty points all the way to an 18 month driving ban.

In my client’s first case, he had been stopped and required to provide a preliminary breath test at the roadside.  He refused thinking that he didn’t have to comply and was arrested.  At the police station, he provided an evidential sample and was found to be completely alcohol free.

Had the offence been committed at the police station on the evidential breath machine then the sentence imposed would match with the sentencing guidelines for that offence.  This leads me to the conclusion that when my client was originally sentenced, the magistrates used the wrong set of guidelines to pass sentence.  The thing that riles me most about this is that nobody in the court room noticed – not the legal advisor, not the prosecutor and not the duty solicitor who represented him back then!  That’s six people (3 magistrates and the others) who failed to appreciate that they were passing an outrageously inflated sentence because not a single person in the courtroom had sufficient knowledge of motoring law, i.e. the law the solicitors were being paid to know and that the magistrates had sworn to uphold.

Not so long ago many solicitors were general practitioners, maybe drafting a commercial contract on a Monday, appearing in the magistrates court on a Tuesday and preparing petitions for divorce on Wednesday but today the law is becoming so complex that GP solicitors are becoming a rare breed.  Even in criminal law, which used to be a specialism itself, the law has developed to a point where an entire room full of criminal solicitors can get the law wrong on what should be a very simple sentencing issue.


As a point of public policy I’m not sure that overly complex law is a good thing for the public; however, it is the reality of the world we live in.  So, whether you need a contract drafted, an ex-divorced or a minor motoring offence defended make sure the solicitor you instruct has the necessary skills to handle your case.

Comments

  1. I don't suppose any people in the courts "machine" could care less. Today all morality, probity, and considerations of justice has completely disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The sentencing guidance does not appear to show two different offences. It seems that it is that that is incorrect. I wager the court followed the guidance provided to them. Do you look at the sentencing guidance? It seems to say must disqualify for at least 12 months. Have you raised it with the powers that be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The guidelines do deal with this offence - this is the problem that people who aren't experienced in motoring law struggle to find the information they need.

      Page 135 under the heading "Offences appropriate for the imposition of a fine or discharge" and "Part 1: Offences concerning the driver"

      Gives a maximum fine of L3 and 4 points with a starting point of a band B fine.

      Delete
    2. I can see why the JPs saw page 128 and didn't realise 135 had more appropriate content. Surely the advisor is there to advise and prevent this type of thing.

      Delete
  3. Not being a proponent of sentencing guidelines per se I am not surprised that the gnomes of Petty France should have s*** on their faces for this omission. Thankfully I cannot recollect ever having had to sit on such a charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's is very rarely charged. Either the person fails to provide at the police station or they do provide and fail the test so is charged with the more serious offences. Usually, in my experience at least, when somebody is found not to be drunk the police don't charge because the suspect has been arrested etc.

      Delete
  4. A very helpful post, and one I shall (try to) recall if ever I am faced with such a scenario. I think it's important to stress that the real issue here is in the charging, not the court decision. Courts do try and check that the elements of the offence are made out, but if the offence has been wrongly charged, then they're essentially basing that assessment on the wrong criteria. Neither a DJ(MC) nor a 'lay' bench of justices actively seeks to go behind the charge, seeking rather to see whether it's made out. But the point here is well-made and I hope well-taken. Certainly, the (closed) 'Magistrates Today' forum has picked up on this and sought to give it the necessary publicity. One can but hope that the JCS and above all individual Justices' Clerks (all too many of whom seem to forget their first and indeed primary function, and focus on their administrative duties) will ensure that their legal advisers are alert to this eventuality, especially in areas with "gateway courts" (at which road traffic offences from across a wide region, such as the Thames Valley, are brought together in a single specialist court with justices who are used to dealing with such matters).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…