Case Victories & Testimonials

Marcus has been representing clients accused of speeding and other driving offences for several years. In a recent interview he stated: “I am continually amazed at the recurring mistakes made by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.  The police often accuse me of winning cases on technicalities, or ‘loopholes’, thereby allowing motorists to get away with speeding. My response is simple – everyone is innocent until proven guilty and if the police make mistakes, they lose”.

Many clients have sent recommendations or testimonials to be placed on the website. Others have asked that a summary of their cases are included to assist other motorists.

Time allowing, Marcus’ intention is to update this page on a regular basis. For obvious reasons we have changed client names. We have also, with a little reluctance, changed some police and CPS details to spare their embarrassment. We can, however, assure all readers that the information summarised below is based on real events, actual clients and Marcus’ own court hearings.

April 2011

Dear Marcus

Many thanks for the letter today telling me my case has been concluded!

Initially I was going to just accept the points and fine because I thought who would believe me over 2 traffic cops but you and your team were correct to fight it!

I would recommend you to anybody who asks. Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail has been aware of this case from the start and will be very pleased with the outcome!

I hope I do not need your services again but your number has been kept just in case!

Many thanks

Martin

(Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court)

30th March 2011

Hi Marcus

Just a quick note for your website.

I am very happy with the outcome today, actually that is an understatement.

I was stopped by an officer using a pro laser gun that recorded my speed at 73mph in a 30mph zone. I thought the only outcome would be a long ban.

Marcus showed his expert knowledge defending me and making the police officer pretty much lost for words in the courtroom.

The result: no ban and I’m still driving. A pretty remarkable result.

I could've used a local solicitor for a few hundred pounds cheaper, but I guarantee I would've been getting the bus to work tomorrow.

GREAT RESULT!

Cheers

Mick

(Redbridge Magistrates’ Court. March 2011)

17th March 2011

I wish to give a big thank you to Marcus and his legal team, whose help was invaluable in having my case dropped.

I wholeheartedly recommend his professional approach to speeding and other alleged motoring offences.

I contacted Marcus after receiving a Notice of Intended Prosecution for the alleged offence of exceeding the speed limit of 30mph.

After speaking to Marcus and sending him a copy of the NIP it was clear that he was initially concerned that mistakes may have been made by the police that could have led to an incorrect speed-reading.

From then on Marcus and his team dealt with everything whilst I was made fully aware of proceedings.

There are all sorts of issues that an ordinary person does not even consider when receiving a notice of prosecution. One just assumes that the police are correct and there is no point in arguing against it.

In my case the charge was dropped, as the CPS offered no evidence.

I am so grateful that with Marcus and his team’s help we took them to task and it resulted in a successful outcome.

I would highly recommend Marcus and his team to anyone wishing to protect their licence.

Many Thanks

Pete G.

(Kiddeminster Magistrates’ Court)

31st January 2011

Dear Marcus,

I would like to thank you and your team for the professional and expeditious way you dealt with my alleged speeding case. You will know that it went to court and I was found not guilty after the judge gave it due consideration.

I have never been to Court in my life but I was led through the whole process in a very professional manner, for which I am very grateful.

It is particularly pleasing knowing that my costs may be returned to me as we were awarded central funds.

Once again many thanks. I will be recommending you to my friends and colleagues.
Best wishes,

James R
(Liverpool Magistrates’ Court)

18 January 2011

Dear Marcus

Please find below my testimonial for you to use. Feel free to edit it down.

As I said I would be happy to give any verbal reference.

Thanks for everything.

Jane L

I was fortunate to find Marcus Johnstone and his firm, Speeding Solicitor, after searching the internet. I was caught allegedly speeding on the M4 in May 2009 by a mobile speed camera.

Due to my alleged high speed I was not offered a fixed penalty but ordered to appear at a Magistrates Court. This I found extremely alarming.

I spoke directly to Marcus Johnstone who explained my options and what he could do to help me. After this I decided that he would represent me in court.

My court appearance kept being postponed and eventually in October 2010 the case went ahead. Marcus was representing me and I met him at the court.

He successfully put my case forward and I was found not guilty. I left with no fine, no points and no ban. It was a better outcome than I could have imagined.

I kept in regular contact either by telephone or by emails, sometimes directly with Marcus or through staff in his office. I always felt confidant that he was an expert in this field and the outcome illustrates this.

As my case was thrown out I also get my legal fees refunded. I would recommend Marcus Johnstone and his company as I found them very professional.

Jane L

(Swindon Magistrates’ Court)

7th January 2011

Hi Marcus

Here’s my testimonial:

I am a young driver, and had just past my test. I was stopped whilst driving, and was later issued a summons to go to court, charged with two offences of travelling at 50mph in a 30mph limit and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. I needed to prove my innocence as I could lose my licence and gain a criminal record.

I originally used another firm of solicitors who did not prepare my case (beware of solicitors who are not specialists on road traffic law and do not follow through with their promises). I was very fortunate to get an adjournment, so I was able to change solicitors to Marcus and his team who produced an outstanding result.

Marcus thoroughly prepared my case and, with an expert witness, was able to prove my innocence. I was acquitted on both charges, so no points or a criminal record were issued. He genuinely cares about winning, and was available at evenings and weekends to discuss my case.

I cannot thank you enough for your brilliant service and would recommended you to anybody who finds themselves in this situation.

A massive big thank you to you and your team for a fantastic outcome.

Jordan

(Barnstaple Magistrates’ Court)

12th November 2010

I think my recent experience is a text book case where using professional help (and particularly that of Marcus) can throw up results that you wouldn’t have dreamt of if dealing with the problem on your own. Having passed the same speed camera at 41 mph in a 30 zone, three times within five days, I was staring at potentially 12 points on my driving licence (over and above the six points I’ve already clocked up) and an automatic lengthy driving ban to follow.

With the prospect of losing my licence, even with glaring evidence against me I thought it was worth spending a bit of money to explore possible mitigations. Where I saw none, Marcus offered some glimmer of hope. With few supportive facts to work from you need a bit of luck to get by. If you are a professional like Marcus even a straw can be worth something and by knowing the system sometimes you can create your own luck.

The outcome of my misfortune was two wins out of three. I had my day in court. One charge was dropped even before the actual hearing due to brilliant arguing from Marcus. In the end I pleaded guilty to the last offence. In all, Marcus managed to get the penalty down to 3 points and me keeping my licence. Do I need to spell it out, I’m one happy customer!

K B
(Bromley Magistrates’ Court)

27th September 2010

Dear Marcus

Thanks a million!

Words cannot describe my experience with a professional solicitor like yourself.

“As soon as I received the offer of fixed penalty, I contacted about 7 solicitors I found on Google. It was a speed camera, which caught me at 65 mph in a 50 mph motorway. I already had 3 points and since I was still in the probationary period, my licence would have been revoked if I accepted the 3 points offer.

It was a weekend and only Marcus responded to my enquiry. The other solicitors waited till Monday to call back and when they did, they told me it is a lost case and I have to accept the fixed penalty and re-apply for a new licence.

Marcus offered me a free comprehensive initial advice. He explained all the legal issues in layman terms, which made it easy to understand and make a choice. Even when he discussed the financial aspect, he told me exactly how much I will pay with no hidden charges.

During the whole process, I had the pleasure to contact Marcus directly on his mobile anytime, even on Sundays! And when it came to hearing in court, Marcus represented me personally and he managed to win the case without me having to say any word in court!

I have never dealt with a solicitor before, but I didn’t think I will find someone as friendly and professional as Marcus.”

Regards,

Sal A

(Caerphilly Magistrates’ Court)

14th September 2010

Hello Marcus,

I thought I would let the dust settle from the proceedings on Friday before writing in.

Firstly, thank you for your help and support over the last six months, as I am sure you can imagine it was a trying time.

The help, guidance and representation provided by you and your team was excellent.

Had the case not been about me, I may have even enjoyed the proceedings on Friday last.

I must confess the one hour forty deliberation was the longest time imaginable and I had half expected the magistrates to reappear with black gowns and hoods for a very serious sentence.

Marcus kept to a central tenant of argument which was incontrovertible; the police had failed to provide accurate evidence relating to the correct distance check (concerning the use of a laser gun). The Police and CPS had been told many times by Marcus that this was the case and the basis of the defence. For the CPS solicitor to ask the Court to go to the police station and perform the measurements using the laser gun was bordering on farce. The Magistrates refused to do what the police should have done several months earlier!

So, an experience not to be repeated, lesson learnt and a heartfelt thank you for your excellent help.

After the not guilty verdict was passed, Marcus applied to the court for access to central funds and this was granted by the court.

Once again, many thanks.

Regards,

Neil

(Burton upon Trent Magistrates’ Court)

Hi Marcus,

Just a quick email to say thank you for your help today - its greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

G A

(Drink-driving - Halton Magistrates’ Court. August 2010)

7th September 2010

Hello Marcus,

Please feel free to use my testimonial regarding Robert’s case, here goes:

“My son was accused by the police of driving without due care and attention. He had passed his test as a 17 year old only 3 weeks before the accident so when we were summonsed to court I felt he need professional help in handling the situation.

All along, my son had said that the other driver had gone through a red light, but the police said they had witnesses and prosecuted my son.

There was some doubt about the other driver having a full licence and that really stopped my son just ticking the police summons letter, accepting a guilty plea and taking a fine and a possible 6 points which would have meant him having to take his test again.

I spoke with Marcus Johnstone about all the aspects of the case and after a lengthy conversation we decided to employ Marcus to fight the case.

After several months of legal arguments (all handled by Marcus on our behalf), the court informed Marcus that the police had dropped the case. Of course both my son and I were absolutely delighted with this, and then saw how easily it could have been to tick the box and accept the consequences.

Without Marcus’s help this could have turned out so differently, he dealt with the system in such a way that only professional like him knows how. It will have saved my son so much money in increased insurance premiums, more driving lessons and re-tests. Marcus’ fee was well worth it.”

Russell M

(Trafford Magistrates’ Court)

6th September 2010

Having been accused of speeding I was not convinced that I was the driver of the car at the time and provided the police with the names of several people who had access to my car at the time. The police did not follow up any of these suggestions and pursued a prosecution of me for speeding and failing to reveal the identity of the driver - despite the names I'd sent them.

At this point I felt out of my depth so I engaged Marcus to handle the case and, a couple of months later, received the news that the case had been dropped and with any luck I'll get my costs paid by the court too.

I'm very pleased with the outcome of course but also with the handling of the case. It's very satisfactory to be able to hand the case over and not have to stress over all the details.

I'll certainly advise friends or family to contact Marcus if they are in the unfortunate position of needing assistance with an alleged speeding offence.

Thanks Marcus

George

(Nottingham Magistrates’ Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

18 August 2010

Dear Marcus

First of all I would like to say a BIG BIG Thank You to everybody from the Speeding Solicitor team.

Everything began when my wife filled in the NIP with my name as the driver. After 5 months I was received a Summons with 3 offences accusing me of driving without due care, fail to stop and fail to report.

I searched for solicitors and I did manage to get couple of solicitors phone numbers and tried to give them a ring. None of the conversations come back with satisfactory results, some of them did not even know the law or procedure in these cases and one of them said that we will have to go to the court on the day and just plead guilty. Also the prices given was not to taken very easy by me!

Searching trough fight-back forums I did manage to find Marcus’ web site, www.speedingsolicitor.co.uk, and I left him a message. I received a phone call from Marcus who professionally explained to me what the procedure is and what he suggested I should do for each charge. This conversation lead me to think that Marcus was the right person to deal with my case and due to his low fixed fee I decided to go ahead with him to fight my case.

At court I was represented by Marcus personally and he managed to do what never even crossed my mind - the whole case was dismissed due to lack of proof that I was behind the wheel.

I just call that a ‘masterstrike’ as I don't know how Marcus persuaded the CPS to drop the case against me. The CPS had been prosecuting me for over 18 months and yet within a few minutes at court they had to admit that they did not have the correct evidence. All 3 charges were dropped!

I still have a clean driving licence and enjoy giving out Marcus’ business cards!

Don't wait till its too late when you receive a NIP or Summons - give Marcus a ring. I was on the way to just pleading guilty at the beginning but, believe me, I’m glad that I found Marcus and as he says "you are innocent until the CPS prove guilt". He is a true professional and has a huge knowledge of road traffic law. An excellent result in my case.

Mark R

(Liverpool Magistrates’ Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

May 2010

I was stopped by an unmarked traffic car for speeding at 55-60 in a 40 limit on the A12 in London, Dec 08. I instructed a local solicitor and told him I wanted to plead not guilty. I already had 9 points on my licence and 1 year previously had already pleaded exceptional hardship in court so I knew my licence was on the line as I had some bad history.

I went to Barking Magistrates, Essex court in Dec 09. The CPS had offered little evidence at this time despite when I was stopped the officers said it was all on video. All they said they had was an officers statement. In court at the last minute the officer appeared with the video tape. My barrister advised me to plead guilty which I did. The court gave me a 9 month ban, £450.00 fine and another 6 points. All round a rather terrible day.

This was going to cripple me so my solicitor immediately put in to have the ban suspended pending a crown court appeal. I went back to the same court (on my own!) and got the ban suspended about 2 weeks later, pending the Crown court appeal, telling them I needed it to earn money to pay the mortgage, and I had employees that were suffering etc.

My crown court date came through and I tried to forget about it, but about a week from the trial, not happy with what my solicitor had done, (or not done!) for me, I thought that I needed someone who specialised in this area. I had read all about the celebrities that had got off on loopholes by employing these 'wiz kid' lawyers, I thought I'd try and find one. I then did a fair bit of research on the net and this is when I came across Marcus Johnstone at “speedingsolicitor.co.uk”.

I rang the number and spoke directly with Marcus. I explained the situation to him. I told him I had a crown court case in 1 weeks time and needed someone with a fight in them to represent me. Within the next hour he had emailed me considerable information and a whole host of questions regarding my case, and I faxed back all the info I had. I this point I realised that my previous barrister and solicitor had not really acted in my best interests.

From that moment on, I was bowled over by the things that my previous solicitor should have done but didn't and I learnt that it was quite possible the case should have never really got this far. I was surprised at Marcus's knowledge of traffic law, and the fact that he was available Saturday & Sunday to speak to. The fees, which when compared with my previous solicitor were easily more than justified for the advice and service I received. A breath of fresh air compared with other 'stuffy' solicitors.

Over the next few days I spoke with Marcus on several occasions, and he arranged for a specialist traffic barrister to represent my case at the Snaresbrook Crown court. At court I won my case - NO ban. The Barrister put in for my costs to be paid from central funds and we got a positive yes, so over the next couple of months we will at least get something back in the way of fees!

All round a excellent result and this saved my livelihood, my employees jobs and my house, etc etc.

The worst thing I did was getting caught speeding, again! The best thing I did was finding your website. Should I ever need to recommend you I will not hesitate.

Thank you again Marcus.

Dan

(Snaresbrook Crown Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi Marcus

Thank you so much for an excellent, thorough and well informed service. You clearly laid out all the possible outcomes and allowed me to make an informed decision.

I would highly recommend you to anyone wishing to protect their license.

Many thanks

H S

(Rugby Magistrates’ Court. December 2009.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus,

Yes I am very pleased with the outcome and recognise that I have queered your pitch by booking a holiday when I should be in court! Therefore the outcome in the circumstances [case dropped by CPS] could not have been better. I will of course recommend you (as I have been doing) at every opportunity.

Once again thanks,

Richard B

(Northwich Magistrates’ Court. June 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Marcus

When I was stopped by an unmarked car, using a follow check with a Cleartone device on the M5, I felt that the Police were not being wholly accurate in their appraisal of my speed, or in fact had followed their own procedures in obtaining the alleged speed. I was accused of 95mph and that carries all sorts of potential penalties and possible outcomes in court. I felt that I needed to properly and robustly defend my 10 year standing clean licence.

I did a lot of research and initially sent a detailed email to 26 legal firms in the area of the court, and advertising ‘speeding’ online. Only 6 followed this up at all and only 3 of these companies actually called me. Marcus was the first to call...at 8pm on a Saturday evening!! He then spent over an hour on this important initial call to explain the possible options, prosecution scenarios and counters.

From there on it was clear that Marcus and his team were the right people for me to risk an investment of a sizeable but initial fixed fee. They guided me through the process and dealt with everything from there on in, dealing with the initial 'not guilty' plea, dealing with the court on my behalf, evidence gathering and arranging everything for the trial.

What transpired was that the day before the second trial date was set (4 months after the ‘offence'), Marcus contacted me to explain that the case had been dropped by the CPS due to a lack of evidence! This was a fantastic result and has also saved me the time, energy, funds and worry of the whole matter.

I would wholeheartedly recommend this professional approach to speeding or other alleged motoring offences. Marcus is the person who can help you. I won my case and Marcus is now in the process of claiming my fees back from central funds. If you think you were wronged then you can fight it. The cost of doing nothing and letting the court system intimidate you, worry you sick and control the outcome will be an overall higher cost!!

Paul

(Taunton Deane & West Somerset Magistrates’ Court. July 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus

Just a note to say a big Thank You to all of you for your help with my thankfully discontinued case!

An extra big thank you for attending Court for me at very short notice, and for phoning me to let me know the good news!

From the start you were helpful and supportive through what was a very stressful time for me, and I appreciate your patience when the stress took over!

I hope I don't need to use you again! I would certainly recommend you to others.

Kind regards

Sue

(Speeding - Ormskirk Magistrates’ Court. January 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus,

Thank you very much for all your work on my case. I am delighted with the outcome and would be very happy for you to use my testimonial on your website:

I was recorded speeding at 60 MPH in a temporary 50 MPH speed restriction on the motorway. As this was my second speeding offence and I have not yet been driving for two years, my license was to be revoked. This would have devastating consequences for me as I rely on being able to drive to get to work.

Thankfully Marcus' work on the case meant that I achieved a successful outcome - no points or fine! The case was resolved quickly. Marcus was extremely helpful, taking time to clearly explain the process of his involvement.

I would highly recommend Marcus to anyone who finds themselves in the same position.

Kind regards,

Rachael

(Speeding - Stafford Magistrates’ Court. February 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi Marcus

Hey, I don’t care how we got there. A result is a result! Many thanks for all of your efforts on this. One less now for you to deal with.

Please also pass on our best regards to your team.

Russell P

(Speeding - Chichester Magistrates’ Court. April 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus

I am writing to express my gratitude for the exceptional and professional service that you provided for me. I was utterly convinced, despite your assurances to the contrary, that I would lose my licence, given that when I came to you I already had 10 penalty points on my licence and had been charged with 2 further offences, one of which was serious enough to result in a disqualification without regard to any previous penalty points.

I have been represented by other lawyers in the past, but never one with such skill and legal knowledge. The performance in court was exceptional.

Once again, I am very grateful.

Roger M

(Speeding x 2 - Birkenhead Magistrates’ Court. May 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Sirs

A big thank you to Marcus and his legal team, whose help was invaluable in having my case dropped.

I was stopped on the motorway and accused of driving at 90mph. The method of speed measurement was a “follow check” the officer stated he had followed me for just 0.4 miles, during which he had maintained a constant distance behind me and by observing his own speedometer was able to say with 100% certainty that I was travelling at 90mph.

I did not agree I had been speeding nor with the way in which my speed had been recorded, which to me appeared a very inaccurate way of measuring speed. When I expressed my views to the officer when I was stopped he became very aggressive and employed various tactics ranging from intimidation to blatant threats, such as, “If you don’t admit to this offence now and sign this document, I will take you to court and they will throw the book at you”.

I had a clean driving licence and was only looking at 3 penalty points if I accepted the “on the spot fine” but on principle alone I decided I would take the matter to court.

After reading very favourable reviews and testimonials I contacted Marcus, who spoke to me at length, giving sound in-depth advice, explaining exactly where I stood from a legal perspective and what my options were. Marcus explained the various avenues he could explore to ensure the police had acted properly (or not) and followed the necessary legal procedures. After speaking with Marcus I engaged his services on a fixed fee basis.

From then on Marcus dealt with everything, entering my not guilty plea and requesting the necessary information from the CPS.

As the months passed and the trial date drew nearer, the CPS had not provided any of the information which they were legally obliged to provide and it became obvious they had no evidence.

Marcus explained the CPS were understaffed and probably had insufficient resources to have even looked at my case prior to trial. Marcus advised me that I had a very high chance of success if I went to trial and he arranged everything for me.

On the day in court the CPS were unable to produce the officer who had stopped me and were unable to offer any evidence whatsoever. They requested an adjournment to allow them more time to gather evidence. We demonstrated to the court that the CPS had breached their legal obligation to provide information prior to the trial despite several letters and faxes from my solicitor. The magistrates agreed with us and denied the request for an adjournment, the case proceeded and the CPS offered no evidence. The case was immediately thrown out with full costs awarded!

It is a sad but true fact that an outcome like this would not have been possible without the expertise and guidance I received from Marcus.

I am very pleased with the service I received from Marcus and his legal team, who kept me fully informed at all times and provided me with the legal knowledge required to make informed decisions. I would highly recommend Marcus to anyone looking for help and advice on any matter relating to motoring law.

Thanks again Marcus!

Chris

(Speeding - Knowsley Magistrates’ Court. May 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi Marcus,

Thanks again for all your help with the case.

Here's my testimonial, as promised.

"A policeman on a motorbike alleged I was travelling between 100-110mph on a motorway. He was very aggressive and clearly had an issue with the fact that I was a young guy driving a nice car. Not only was he mistaken about the speed, he also lied on his statement about things I did not even say when he pulled me over. I need to drive as part of my job so when I got the court summons through it was very distressing for me.

I spoke to a number of solicitors who were very rude and did not want to go into any detail on the phone, in fact they just wanted to make me panick even more to justify their fees. Marcus was the opposite: friendly, responsive, knowledgable and was refreshingly happy to have a long detailed conversation right off the bat.

Unlike other solicitors I have encountered, Marcus always has the time for you and quickly responds to voicemails and emails. The case went on for over 8 months as the CPS kept dragging it out when asked for evidence. When it became apparent that it was going to court and extra costs were required I was asked a difficult question: do we try to negotiate it down to under 100mph, accept points and a fine, or do we take it to court with the potential of winning, but with the potential risk of a disqualification if we lost? I did a quick risk/reward analysis and also out of principle I chose the latter.

It was a very stressful experience going to court. However, I am pleased to advise that I was found not guilty due to lack of evidence."

Best regards,

Gary

(Speeding - Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court. June 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi Marcus,

Just a quick email to say thank you for your help today - its greatly appreciated.

Many thanks

G A

(Drink-driving - Halton Magistrates’ Court. August 2010)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus,

"A huge thank you from me for an absolutely fantastic service and advice. No one out there was as thorough and polite with advice and information. Very easy to talk to you and the advice you gave back was invaluable in winning my case. I was "Gatso'd" at 58 MPH in a 40 MPH zone but the signage and road markings were incorrect. The repeater signs being in very bad condition. It is so wonderful to hear those words "not guilty" being said by the magistrates. Words that would have not been said if it were not for your excellent advice and snippets of legal information and phrases.

Thank you once again."

Benjamin

(Speeding - City of London Magistrates’ Court. October 2009)

Note from Marcus: The above client’s case involved not only the accuracy of the Gatso camera but also the road speed limit signs. All too often motorists just accept (without checking) that the speed limit signs are correct. Also, the police often fail to make any mention of the speed signs in their witness statements - they just presume the signs are correct.

Many speed signs are not lawful. I have dealt with cases where the following points have been in issue:

• The speed sign was old and not of correct dimensions
• It was obscured by trees
• It was not clearly visible because of road dirt
• The sign was missing totally
• The sign had been knocked down previously and not replaced
• The sign did not have a light above it
• It was not of the correct reflectivity
• Repeater signs were not adequately spaced along the road
• Inadequate warning was given of a change of speed limit

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi Marcus,

I can’t say how happy I am with the result - going from 4 charges, with the possibility of having 12 penalty points, plus the possibility of being disqualified for 12 months, down to no charges as the day went on!!!

I am really am pleased, you have been brilliant; thank you Marcus for everything you have done and said over the months and for the fabulous representation in court. I was bowled over when my case was presented in court; the prosecution didn’t stand a chance.

On a final note I now have a shiny BMW X3 for sale – I have decided to buy myself that Ferrari I promised myself if I won. (Don’t worry I have stored your contact details for future use)

Thank you once again

Mike

(Speeding x 4 offences - Stafford Magistrates’ Court. March 2009)

Note from Marcus. Most of the advice and representation that we provide is done so on a fixed fee basis. This keeps costs as low as possible for clients even where, as in this case, my client faced several charges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus,

I am just writing to thank you for all your hard work. My case was dealt with in a professional and friendly manner. Please add this testimonial to your website:-

"I was recorded speeding at more than double the speed limit in a 30mph zone by a hand held laser gun. I was not convinced that I was travelling at the speed implied so I contacted a few solicitors to discuss my predicament. After a friendly and informal conversation to Marcus I knew that I had found the right solicitor to take on my case. In the following months Marcus and his team took on all aspects of my case leaving me to get on with my life knowing it was in good hands, regular emails and phone conversations kept me in the loop. After 8 months and 2 court hearings, none of which I had to attend, my case was discontinued due to lack of evidence. I would recommend Marcus Johnstone to my friends and family without question."

Regards

David Parker

(Speeding - City of London Magistrates’ Court. February 2009)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding case - Leeds Magistrates’ Court. August 2008

My client was a young man who worked as a car salesman. It was important for him to keep his licence in order for him to retain his job. He had been stopped by the police and accused of speeding at 97mph on a 50mph road. The police used an LTI 20:20 laser device and told him that the device had been calibrated and therefore there was nothing he could do but plead guilty.

My advice to this client, as is usual, was not to accept what the police say without first seeing the evidence. I agreed to take on his case and I when I obtained initial disclosure of the documentation I immediately found mistakes with the police evidence. Unfortunately the CPS would not accept that the police had made mistakes and continued with the prosecution. The CPS stated that the police officer had 14 years experience as a traffic officer and had been trained in using the laser device.

After several months we went to trial. Under cross-examination the officer admitted that he did not follow all the correct procedures when using the laser and even stated that the Police’s own Code of Practice did not apply to the LTI 20:20 laser device (when it clearly did). We won the case and we were awarded costs from Central Funds.

Note: The ACPO Code of Practice is a document that was produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It states how the police should operate speed equipment, how the evidence should be documented and how the police should prepare a case for court. You may be surprised just how few police officers actually know what it says! It is also worth considering the manufacturer’s instructions for each device – always amusing when the police haven’t followed them!

The LTI 20:20 laser device, along with the Prolaser device, is widely used by police throughout the UK. In all the cases I have been involved with the police claim these devices are 100% accurate. I cannot agree with this figure. Around 70% of the speeding cases I handle involve these devices and in many cases I find mistakes with the evidence produced by the police.

You may find it helpful to refer to the advice booklets that I have written as these relate specifically to the speed guns used by the police and the ACPO Code of Practice, setting out all the questions you should be asking. Please email me and I will be pleased to send a copy to you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding case - Goole Magistrates’ Court. November 2007

My client had been clocked by the police at 147mph on his R1 motorbike. Having lost the police three times (unintentionally) he was eventually pulled over. The incident was caught on video and my client admitted the offence before I became involved. My client contacted me to see if there was any way he could avoid a ban.

I represented him in court and argued mitigating circumstances. The court imposed 6 points and a fine – but no ban. I must admit, even I was surprised! As far as I am aware, he was at that stage the fastest motorist in the Country to avoid a ban.

Note: You should always be careful not to admit to an offence when first stopped by the police. The police can use your ‘confession’ as evidence of a speeding offence even if I later find fault with the camera evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding case - Birkenhead Magistrates’ Court. March 2008

My client had been caught twice (a few days apart) by the same Gatso camera at the end of the M62 heading into Liverpool. I challenged the accuracy of the evidence including the testing of the camera by the police, the accuracy of the secondary check and the admissibility of certain documents by the Crown Prosecution Service. After about five months of correspondence and two court appearances the CPS dropped both cases. I obtained costs from Central Funds.

Note: Gatso cameras are unmanned static radar cameras and, as such, require both primary and secondary checks to prove the speed. Many motorists do not realise that they should not be convicted without an accurate secondary check and yet in most cases the police do not even tell you about it!

You may find it helpful to refer to the advice booklet I have written specifically on radar devices, including the Gatso Camera. Please email me and I will be pleased to send a copy to you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Failing to identify the driver - Bicester Magistrates’ Court. July 2007

My client had been convicted in his absence of failing to identify the driver (known as a section 172 offence) and received points and a fine. He contacted me after the conviction and asked if there was anything that could be done. He stated that he did not know whether it was him or his wife who had driven the car. I was able to set aside the conviction and re-open the case (a relatively simple and straightforward procedure). As the case had been re-opened I was able to go back to the start, making sure that my client’s case was presented properly. We won at court and obtained costs from Central Funds.

Note: Failing to identify the driver carries 6 points and a fine up to £1000. There are numerous reasons why a driver cannot be identified, and there is even a statutory defence to this charge, but it is vital to follow the correct procedure. Simply stating that your wife may have been driving probably won’t convince the court. I normally provide a list to clients of all the issues that should be checked – easy to do and certainly helpful to your case!

If you are charged with failing to identify the driver, consider also: Could someone else have been driving your car – friends, family, work colleagues?

Could your car have been cloned – someone else driving the same vehicle as yours with your registration number?

Did you ever receive the Notice of Intended Prosecution and section 172 notice or could it have been lost in the post?

Did you complete and return the s.172 notice but it was not received by the police?

You should also be aware that it is for the CPS to prove the case against you, not for you to disprove it. This is certainly helpful to you – but you must go about it in the correct way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding and failing to identify the driver - Devizes Magistrates’ Court. April 2008

My client had been charged both with speeding and failing to identify the driver. I was able to convince the CPS to drop the failing to identify charge (carrying 6 points) and proceed solely on a speeding charge (carrying 3-6 points). I was then able to identify a ‘loophole’ in the CPS case and it was dropped 10 minutes before the trial was due to start.

Note: I often find that the CPS make mistakes (as well as the police). Finding mistakes, or ‘loopholes’, is not too difficult – it’s knowing what to do when you find them that makes the difference.

It is becoming more common for the CPS to push cases to court in the hope that the motorist will panic and plead guilty. If you stand firm, having taken correct legal advice, you may find that the CPS will drop the case shortly before your court date or when you turn up at court. Of course I then make a claim to recover your legal costs from Central Funds.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding - Ludlow Magistrates’ Court. May 2008

My client had pleaded guilty to speeding prior to my involvement. He was desperate to avoid a ban, having been caught at 135mph. I represented him in court and argued ‘exceptional hardship’. The court agreed not to ban him from driving.

Note: It is possible to avoid a ban even if you reach 12 or more points by convincing the court that ‘exceptional hardship’ would be caused by imposing a ban. This should be handled carefully, ensuring that the correct evidence is presented to the court.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding - Walsall Magistrates’ Court. June 2008

My client, Stephen, had been flashed by a Gatso camera doing 107mph on a 40mph road on his Aprilia motorbike. He faced a lenghty ban and I represented him at court. I argued ‘special reasons’ as to why his speed reached 107mph. In this case the throttle cable had jammed when accelerating. This was accepted by the court and he received an absolute discharge – no fine and no ban.

Note: ‘Special reasons’ can be argued when a situation arises concerning the circumstances of the offence (such as the throttle cable sticking) rather than the motorist’s personal circumstances (such as the loss of his job).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding - Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court. June 2008

This was a case where the police and the CPS insisted we would lose (if only I had £1 for each time I heard this). My client was charged with speeding. He was allegedly doing 110mph whilst being followed by the police. The police stated that “it was a textbook procedure for a follow check”.

During cross-examination at trial I was able to uncover a catalogue of errors by the police officer. For example, the officer stated that it was daylight and he had a clear view of my client’s car. It was actually 4am on a January morning – pitch black. The calibration check that was completed by the police officer was wrong – the officer accepted that he always did the check in the same way (and therefore every check he ever completed was unreliable). The officer produced a certificate of accuracy for the speedometer in the police car – produced four years before the car was made! The court found my client not guilty and commented on the unreliability of the police evidence. We obtained costs from Central Funds.

Note: The police often claim that a follow check is extremely accurate as it involves the police following your vehicle a set distance behind. Such a speed check can involve intricate equipment that records time and distance along with video, or it can be as simple as noting the speed from the police car’s speedo. However, the rules relating to such checks are complex and the police do make mistakes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Marcus

Please find below my testimonial as promised.

“In September 2007 my son was stopped and booked for speeding, having allegedly driven at 40mph in a 30mph zone, only four days after passing his driving test. The police officer was using a laser speed detection device and seemingly enjoyed handing my son a speeding ticket, particularly since he discovered that Matthew already had 4 points on his licence, so would have to retake his theory and practical tests. Furthermore, my son would lose his job until such time as he could regain his licence.

My decision to challenge the speeding allegation followed an initial discussion with Marcus Johnstone where he talked me through the complex rules that govern the handing out of a speeding ticket, which are rarely followed by the police. This covered lack of training and competence in the operation of laser guns in line with the manufacturers manual, the police’s own code of conduct, the calibration of the device before and after the event, the logging in the pocket notebook and so on.

So, was it likely that these steps had been followed to the letter thereby making the conviction sound? Or had they cut corners, which would make the conviction challengeable? Marcus assured me that the latter was more probable and he proved to be 100% correct.

However, the period between giving the go-ahead and actually winning our case became a series of requests to the CPS for information, all of which were ignored, court appearances, case management hearings, many faxes, emails and telephone conversations. You must be prepared to be stonewalled by the CPS who unashamedly use the court system to stretch your resources to breaking point. You have to have the courage of your convictions and trust in the basic premise that the police invariably cut corners and the evidence is likely to be full of holes.

Case management hearings come and go; they are designed to get you to court with your solicitor to run up your costs. The CPS turn up with no information; the court may or may not direct them to provide requested documentation. If the court does instruct them, invariably they don’t respond. This could be interpreted as arrogant confidence or a total lack of ability to construct a solid case; I tend to think it’s the latter. We actually had two case management hearings one week apart; the first concluded with the court putting the CPS on notice to provide all outstanding information within seven days. The court felt we had every right to request information, and recognised that the CPS was using the court system to run up our costs thereby increasing pressure on us to fold. The following week a magistrate in the same court completely overruled the previous week’s court decision and gave the CPS leave to produce the requested information at trial. So it was either trial or fold!

It was at this point that I very nearly caved in, and would have done so had it not been for Marcus’s confidence in the inability of the police to follow procedures to construct a solid case.

So, we went ahead and turned up at court suited and booted. Marcus, myself, wife and son. The evidence was produced and, laughably, turned out to be full of holes just as Marcus had assured me. Amongst other items, we had requested a copy of the manufacturer’s instruction manual; the police produced two copies for the wrong laser device. The police officer didn’t hold a certificate of competence to operate the laser gun. The calibration procedures hadn’t been followed correctly.

We could hardly believe it, but its true! The police had absolutely no solid evidence, and the magistrates refused a request from the CPS to adjourn to obtain the appropriate documents. The CPS therefore offered no evidence, and the case was dismissed.

I want to thank Marcus again for keeping me positive and giving me the encouragement to keep going in the face of such adversity. The police and the CPS displayed such arrogance and disregard for proper legal process. I’m so pleased that we toughed it out and saved my son’s driving licence!”

Ian Benson 11.10.08

Speeding - Manchester Magistrates’ Court. July 2008

Note from Marcus: This case involved the police using a laser gun to detect speed. You may find it helpful to read two booklets I have written concerning the unreliability of laser devices and steps you can take to win your case. Please email me and I will be pleased to send a copy to you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding - Liverpool Magistrates’ Court. August 2008

My client, Peter, was stopped by the police and accused of speeding. He allegedly admitted the offence and this was recorded by the police. The police stated that they had all the evidence to achieve a conviction. In fact my client was about to plead guilty when he was recommended to contact me. I advised him not to plead guilty but to challenge the evidence against him.

Please refer to the attached letter written to me by my client after we won the case. We also obtained our costs from Central Funds.

"… I didn’t really believe I had any chance of winning. The police used a laser speed gun before pulling me over. I didn’t think I was going at the speed alleged by the police but I apologised anyway in the hope that they may just give me a warning but they wrote this down and said I had confessed to the offence. They said that all their equipment was operating correctly and I should just plead guilty, especially as they had written in their notebooks that I had admitted to speeding. They also said that they had done all the correct calibration checks. Fortunately I spoke with Marcus before sending back the court forms. Marcus explained that we should challenge the evidence and make the prosecution prove every aspect of the speeding charge, rather than just accept it.

Marcus explained all the various checks that the police should do and what could go wrong. He also explained that the CPS also make mistakes and if the correct procedures are not followed then we could win on a technicality or loophole, whether I was actually speeding or not.

The case went on for a few months whilst Marcus wrote to the CPS requesting numerous documents but often getting little by response. Marcus explained that it was good news that the CPS did not respond or only sent part of the information requested. However, the CPS continued with the case and the court set a date for trial. I couldn’t understand why Marcus was willing to go ahead with the trial when the police and the CPS had not provided the information that he had asked for – but he knew what he was doing.

On the morning of the trial I was not sure what to expect, especially when I found out that three police officers were going to give evidence against me. Marcus took control of everything and, before the trial even started, he was able to show to the court legal adviser and the CPS lawyer the mistakes that the CPS had made. This also included a failure to produce a document which meant that the CPS had no evidence! The CPS, after several frantic phone calls and checking of law books, agreed to drop the case. I was also awarded my costs back. The police officers were not amused and it was difficult not to show a slight smile as I walked past them.

I am still not sure how Marcus managed to do what he did, but I don’t really care. I still have a clean licence. I would have no hesitation in recommending him to anyone.”

Peter Macmillan.

Note from Marcus: Making the CPS prove its case (called putting the prosecution to proof) is relevant whether you have admitted to speeding or not. Many people automatically apologise to the police when accused of speeding but this does not mean you have been speeding. In addition, the police often summarise what is said to them – usually to their advantage. In Peter’s case the CPS failed to serve on the defence an important document within a required time – meaning it had no admissible evidence. Realising it had no chance of winning the CPS requested an adjournment. I objected to this on the basis that the CPS had been placed on notice of the relevant issues (my letters and faxes to the CPS) and the fact that they had made a mistake should not entitle them to an adjournment to try and correct matters. The court agreed with me and the CPS then offered no evidence – dropping the case.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Speeding case - Ely Magistrates’ Court. January 2009

My client in this case was accused of speeding and would have lost his job if convicted. It appeared to me at an early stage that the police and the CPS had made some mistakes. The CPS would not listen to reason and, it seemed to me, wanted to push my client to court in the hope he would plead guilty. After the court hearing my client wrote to me with a summary of his case (below) and asked that I place it on my website.

“In May 2008 I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution from Cambridgeshire Constabulary for allegedly failing to comply with a 70 mph speed limit (93 mph) on a restricted road (A14 nr Molesworth). I disagreed with this & immediately contacted Marcus Johnstone, Solicitor, via the website www.speedingsolicitor.co.uk

Within a day I had received a telephone call from Marcus outlining my options regarding this alleged offence & how he could assist me. I found this information invaluable in deciding to challenge the alleged offence.

I retained the services of Marcus Johnstone for an agreed fixed fee so I knew exactly what my cost would be before going to trial. Should I have been found guilty I was potentially facing a large fine & possibly 6 points or even a driving ban.

I went to trial before Ely Magistrates Court in January 2009 & was successfully represented. With Marcus’s expert help & procedural guidance the three Magistrates found the Police evidence at best inaccurate & at worst non existent. Within 45 minutes the case against me was dismissed.

In addition to this successful outcome as the Magistrates found in my favour, I am able to recover most if not all of my costs from Central Funds.

I would thoroughly recommend Marcus Johnstone & the website www.speedingsolicitor.co.uk for clear information, excellent advice & professional assistance.”

Adam Reilly

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mobile phone offence - Crewe Magistrates’ Court. October 2008

My client was charged with using a mobile phone whilst driving. The police officer stated that he saw my client holding the phone to his ear.

With this offence the police had to prove that my client was, in fact, using a phone. The police and the prosecution service often fail to realise that ‘holding’ a phone is not the same as ‘using’ a phone. The prosecution service insisted on taking the case to court and called the police officer as a witness.

The Magistrates agreed with me that the prosecution service had not provided any evidence that the phone was being used. Holding a phone was not an offence. We won and we recovered costs from Central Funds.

Note: This offence occurs when a driver is “using a hand held mobile telephone”. The law in this area is quite confusing and the police often make mistakes. An offence occurs if a mobile phone is actually hand held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or of performing any other interactive communication function. (The interactive communication function is not defined but would include sending or receiving texts, emails, browsing the internet, etc.) There is particular evidence that the prosecution should obtain in a case like this to help it prove to the court that my client was making or receiving a telephone call. Guess what, the prosecution often fail to obtain it!