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.

26 Ocober 2009

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

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

Stafford Magistrates’ Court - March 2009

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

Note. 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.

City of London Magistrates’ Court - February 2009

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

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 produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and 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 almost every case I find mistakes with the evidence produced by the police.

You may find it helpful to refer to the advice booklets on my website 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 refer to the Document Downloads page.

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.

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. This booklet can be downloaded from the Document Downloads page.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Manchester Magistrates’ Court – July 2008

My client, Matthew, was a new driver and therefore stood to have his licence revoked if convicted of speeding. Although I was able to identify numerous errors made by the police, the CPS insisted on continuing the prosecution against him. Please refer to the letter below, written to me by my client’s father after we won the case. We also obtained our costs from Central Funds.

“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

Note: 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. These booklets can be downloaded from the Document Downloads page.

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. September 2008.

Note: 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.

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

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 certain 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!