Don’t let other solicitors tell you it’s not possible to avoid a driving ban! We have set out below details of 18 cases won over a 5 week period in which all clients featured avoided a driving ban after representation from National Motoring Lawyers including 4 successful cases on the same day. You will see that in ALL of these cases the charges were dropped by the prosecution before the commencement of the trial.

These results were achieved using the firms’ tried and tested case strategies. No matter how strong your case when you are charged, you have the same chance as anyone else.

Huddersfield MC – R v SM

The Defendant was charged with failing to provide breath specimen. A defence expert witness confirmed there were medical reasons why a breath sample could not be provided. William McGill (bronze level Barrister) instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to withdraw the charges before the commencement of the trial.

HIghbury MC – R v JB

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. Legal argument was presented by Jay Lemosa with instructions from Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) that the client was unlawfully required to provide a breath sample due to not being provided with a translator. The charges were dropped before the trial.

Peterborough MC – R v DT

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. A blood specimen was provided by the client. The prosecution failed to provide a streamlined forensic report SFR/2 and HORT/5 (record of blood blood sample). Phillip Lucas (gold panel lawyer) with instructions from Sandra Cooper invited the prosecution to adjourn the case and successfully opposed the application resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.

Beverley MC – R v ND

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. This issues in the case were machine reliability and ailure to carry out the breath test procedure correctly. The reviewing lawyer was Laura Heywood. The charges were discontinued before trial.

Cambridge MC – R v HB

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were machine reliability and failure to comply with home office guidance on switching off police radios. Jay Lemosa (instructed by Laura Heywood reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to apply to adjourn the case due to lack of disclosure. This was successfully opposed resulting in no evidence offered.

Stratford MC – R v OA

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues were machine reliability and duress of circumstances. The client had driven away from a nightclub in fear for his safety. Richard Berman (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to offer no evidence at trial after they had agreed a statement supporting the client’s version of events.

Northampton MC – R v KC

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue was machine reliability and procedural correctness of the breath test procedure. The operator of the device failed to attend trial. James Brookes instructed by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) successfully opposed an attempt by the prosecution to adjourn the case to enable the prosecution to attend.

Willesden MC – R v SR

The Defendant was charged with driving excess alcohol in urine. The client had been given a sample of urine to be tested but the officer failed to discard a sample first. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charge before trial.

Carlisle MC – R v XL

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issue in the case was whether a translator should have been provided. The case was discontinued before trial after a skeleton argued was served on the prosecution by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer).

Croydon MC – R v JM

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath. The prosecution failed to serve CCTV or printout or breath specimen booklet. Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case before trial.

Bexley MC – R v MC

The Defendant was charged with fail to provide breath specimen. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The issue in the case was medical reasons due to the client having a panic attack and was seen by the police doctor shortly afterwards. The prosecution failed to provide CCTV from the breath test procedure. After written representations, the charges were discontinued before trial and costs awarded.

Stratford MC – R v TD

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were the failure of the police to complete the MG DD/A breath specimen booklet. The reviewing lawyer Laura Heywood successfully persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the charges before trial.

St Albans MC – R v DC

The client was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. A skeleton argument was served on the prosecution by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) setting out the defence, namely that as the client had been diagnosed with Aspergers an appropriate adult should have been called to attend for the breath test procedure after refusal. The case was discontinued before trial.

Barnsley MC – R v LH

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The hip flask defence was raised (post driving alcohol consumption). After representations by Laura Heywood (reviewing lawyer) the case was discontinued before trial.

Ealing MC – R v ZK

The Defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol in breath. The reviewing lawyer was Sandra Cooper. The issues in the case were machine reliability and failure of the police to complete the MG DD/A. The charges were discontinued before trial.

Maidstone MC – R v DE

The client was charged with failing to provide due to his mental state. Disclosure failings were highlighted by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) and the charges were discontinued before trial.

Romford MC – R v AU

The case was discontinued before trial. The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol and the issue in the case was the failure to call a translator. The case was discontinued before trial after issues were raised by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) concerning disclosure failings by the prosecution in particular non service of unused material.

Staines MC – R v SR

The client was charged with driving with excess alcohol. The issues in the case were machine reliability and procedural correctness. At trial James Brookes (gold panel lawyer) instructed by Sandra Cooper (reviewing lawyer) persuaded the prosecution to discontinue the case as no working copy of the CCTV from the breath test procedure was made available at trial. Case dismissed and costs awarded.