See how many more go to jail with him!!!

This has resulted in three awards against the Prosecution for wasted costs which as a direct result of inefficiency within the Prosecution criminal justice system has cost the tax payer £3,000.

Our client was originally charged with driving with excess alcohol in March of 2010 and made his appearances before the Salford Magistrates’ Court shortly thereafter and a trial date was set.  The Prosecution were directed by the Court to serve the CCTV of the detention and Intoxilyzer procedure of the Defendant as we raised at the outset the issue that the police had not discarded the Defendant’s first sample of urine when analysing this for alcohol content.  Eventually when the trial was listed the Prosecution arrived at Court with the DVD.  Quite rightly the District Judge presiding on the case at the time acceded to a request for an adjournment so the Defendant could quite properly consider the contents of the DVD at leisure as opposed to rushed in the confines of a dingy courtroom consultation room. 

This hearing was also used to clarify that the only issue in the case was that the only Prosecution witness required for the trial would be the Intoxilyzer operator.  The arresting officer’s evidence was not in dispute.

Despite this when the matter came for trial again in February of 2011 both the Intoxilyzer operator and the arresting officer attended at Court.  Both were quite happy to sit at Court doing absolutely nothing other than being paid at the tax payer’s expense particularly in relation to the officer whose evidence had been agreed.  He was told by the Prosecutor at Court he could leave and resume his duties yet decided to stay all day and watch the trial.

Regrettably the Magistrates did not accede to the Defence contention that the statutory warning required in all drink driving cases had not been appropriately given and convicted the Defendant.  They did however allow him his licence back pending the immediately lodging of an appeal. 

The appeal was then set down to be heard in June of 2011 at the Minshull Street Crown Court.

By that time the Intoxilyzer operator had retired from the police.  The Prosecution in their infinite disarray had sent a witness warning to the police. The police did absolutely nothing to inform the Prosecution that the officer had now retired.  Therefore when the case came to Court in June the Intoxilyzer operator did not attend, this was because the Prosecution through the Crown Prosecution Service and police had not liaised and checked with each other that the witness had in actual fact been warned.  As a result of this the Prosecution made an application to adjourn the case and the matter was set down for appeal on 15 September.  By that time it became apparent within the office of the Crown Prosecution Service that the retired officer was not going to comply and attend at Court.  He had even written to the Prosecution saying he was not going to attend Court.  At that stage it would have been prudent or at least thoughtful for the Prosecution to have arranged for a witness summons to be issued against the now civilian retired officer to secure his attendance at Court.  Despite what would be blatantly obvious to anybody reasonably competently associated with the criminal justice system the Prosecution did nothing again.  As a result of this the appeal did not go ahead because the officer was not warned to attend Court.

Judicial Review proceedings then commenced against the Minshull Street Crown Court for granting two adjournments where it was patently obviously that the Prosecution’s inefficiency had caused unnecessary delay in the case.  Finally at the Minshull Street Crown Court yesterday the officer, now retired, did attend at Court in pursuance of the witness summons which by that time had been issued.  Remarkably the serving officer who arrested the Defendant also re-attended at the Minshull Street Crown Court having attended on the two futile appearances which had been aborted.  That officer, the arresting officer had therefore spent four days at Court for no real or apparent reason and the prosecution had been specifically told that his evidence was not in dispute. 

Finally when the now retired officer did give his evidence he confirmed that the warning required in all drink drive cases had not been correctly administrated and the Court very quickly allowed the Defendant’s appeal and overturned his conviction.

As a result of this an application was made to the Court for the wasted costs of the aborted hearings to be borne by the Prosecution and this was granted and the tax payer yet again has to subsidise the Crown Prosecution Service and police in the sum of £2,400 for them not getting their act together to warn the officer.

Would it not have been nice though if the Court could have made a direct award against the retired officer for him having the affront to the criminal justice system to say that because he was no longer a serving officer and was not prepared to attend Court and also against the officer who simply sat around at the tax payer’s expense being paid, not policing and watching Court proceedings.

If only the Courts would make more awards of costs against the police and the Prosecution when their overwhelming inefficiency is shown up then perhaps the government’s ethos of simple speedy summary justice could be administered far more effectively and properly.

In any event the happy client was delighted with the outcome when the retired officer actually told the truth in Court about what had gone on.

Following numerous failings by the Prosecution to serve evidence on the Defendant and a Wasted Costs Order being granted by the District Judge in Salford the case is now going before the Manchester Crown Court involving a man charged with an allegation of driving with excess alcohol.

The case at the Crown Court has now had three defective hearings all because the police officer in the case has resigned and is steadfastly refusing to come to Court following his resignation from the police.

This gentleman has now had this case hanging over him for almost two years and when the Prosecution witnesses are effectively sticking two fingers up at the Court why should this man face further uncertainty about his future.  We are therefore seeking a Judicial Review of the Crown Court’s decision to grant the Prosecution a further adjournment allowing them to make extra efforts to get the policeman to Court.

I hope the application for Judicial Review is successful and the Crown Court Judge’s decision to grant a further adjournment is overturned but if not hopefully the Crown Court Judge will make a personal Wasted Costs Order against the retired policeman who was quite happy to sit on his backside at Court getting paid whilst in the police but now cannot be bothered to come to Court.

Surely there comes a point where the Prosecution must accept that they cannot in all fairness keep this matter hanging over the Defendant and they should withdraw the case.

The tragic consequences for the family of the Deceased are obvious for all to see and for them to reflect upon the fact that the Prosecution have alluded in Court to the fact that the motorist HGV driver was texting must give them enormous personal discomfort at an emotionally charged and difficult time. Whilst the circumstances of the case are that the Judge accepted that the texting had finished some time before the actual accident and that the HGV driver was distracted by other things the fact that motorists can text while driving does give some concern as to overall road safety.

With advances in technology as they are surely there must be some way for car manufacturers to put a disabling device into newly constructed vehicles to stop them accepting or receiving cellular data whilst the engine is on. If this could be incorporated quite simply and efficiently either into all vehicles or a device that can easily be installed into vehicles then the tragic consequences of motorway pile ups as a result of drivers being distracted by ever more information being sent or received to mobile handheld devices should be prevented in the future.

As a road traffic defence lawyer specialising in representing motorists charged with all offences before the Courts the human consequences and tragic nature of this case do sometimes mean that prevention by the imposition of technology would have been the most beneficial action in this case rather than having a family devastated by tragedy on one part and another family devastated by imprisonment on the other. Whilst imprisonment will never make up for the tragedy and horrific consequences of this case the whole nature of the whole event should and probably in the future could be prevented and I urge motoring manufacturers to take on board developments in technology.

What a ludicrous situation. The driving motorist must be allowed freedom to smoke in his car if he wants to but should have some sense for the wellbeing of his passengers if they do not smoke.

How far does the nanny state want to go?

Whilst the drivers involved in both accidents may ultimately be prosecuted for motoring offences either dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention this will not prevent accidents in future unless something is done about this.

We have  today been notified by the Royal Mail that our post from now on is not likely to arrive before 2.30 each day and they have indicated that on some occasions the post may not arrive at all that day due to their own internal logistical transport problems.

What is the point of the Royal Mail trying to ask the public for a £1 first class stamp and then not being able to deliver nationally its next day service.  How do they expect businesses to survive and rely on the post.

Surely there will be now a greater increase in the use of free emails and other postal delivery services.

What use is a telephone system to Road Traffic Soliciotrs who need to speak to clients about their motoring defences if the system does not work?

Anybody else who has had similar difficulties with BT and its Versitility System capabilities please get in touch.

The amount of money we pay in tax on petrol is utterly ludicrous.  We pay more than 60 per cent tax duty on fuel.  Motorists pay this out of money they have earned which has already been taxed by the Government and then to pay another 63% tax on the fuel we buy is absolutely scandalous.

The Government’s highest rate of tax for people is 50 per cent and every motorist in the country is now paying 63 per cent tax, way more than higher rate tax payers out of taxed income for fuel.

This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.  The cost of motoring is becoming prohibitive and with the introduction of more and more revenue raising exercises by Councils and the Government on the motorist there has to be an uprising soon.

The problem is people cannot obtain petrol without paying this high rate of fuel duty and it will probably need a mass movement by motorists throughout the land to blockade many roads before the Government actually do something about it.

Couple this with tax on parking spaces at work, the introduction of higher car parking charges in towns and cities where does it all end?