This Case was heard at Eailing Magistrates Court
To keep our client’s identity confidential, they will be referred to as ‘Miller’ for this case study.
Miller instructed us after being charged with driving without due care and attention/careless driving. Miller advised us that he was driving on the motorway when he noticed a police officer closely behind him, whilst he was trying to exit the lane he was currently driving in. Miller explained to us that he held concerns over the officers driving and therefore he slowed his vehicle down and coasted across lanes to try and reach his destination. This action resulted in the Defendant being pulled over and charged for driving without due care and attention.
After discussing Miller’s case with him at great length he initially advised he wished to proceed with a NOT GUILTY plea, as he believed the officers manner of driving justified his. However, after reviewing the evidence from the CPS, which included a variety of video footage – the evidence against Miller was overwhelming. On the footage the office could be seen having to break sharply to avoid a collision with the Defendant.
We explained to Miller that pursuant to Section 3 of The Road Traffic Act 1988, ‘If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence’. Unfortunately, Millers conducts would satisfy the criteria to be charged and convicted with this offence.
Miller accepted this graciously and advised he wished to change his plea to guilty, but expressed concern as should he hold six or more points on his licence, he would likely lose his employment. We explained to Miller that as per The Magistrates Guidelines, the offence carried a penalty starting at 3-4 points and up to a driving disqualification.
In order to avoid Miller facing the harsher end of the Sentencing Guidelines, we prepared an in-depth case of mitigation focusing on the following:
- Miller would lose his employment should he receive an endorsement equal to or greater than six months
- Miller had held his employment for many years and would struggle to find alternative in the same field, causing him to become financially reliant on the state
- Miller resides alone and without his employment has no other source of income
To further substantiate this we also obtain multiple character references and a copy of Millers employment contract.
The above was all presented alongside Miller’s guilty plea at his hearing for consideration by the court. The Judge sentenced Miller to a 3 point penalty endorsement and a small fine – as a result of mitigation and credit for his guilty plea. Had Miller plead NOT GUILTY, this sentence would have undoubtedly been higher.
Miller was extremely happy to have obtained the minimal sentence available for committing the offence and to retain his employment.
This case is a great example of how instructing a Solicitor can dramatically reduce the sentence your receive.
If you have been charged with careless driving, please call one of our motoring specialists on: 0330 912 2124.