Motorway Madness
Following the recent serious and very tragic road traffic accidents on both the M5 and M56 is it not about time we began to fit as standard on HGVs and probably all vehicles braking detectors to avoid vehicles crashing into each other. Whilst this situation would probably have not prevented either of the recent tragic accidents in view of the long term road safety issues involved in both accidents perhaps it is time the government for the safety of all road traffic road users urged the motor manufacturers to install better safety features.
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.
Disruptive Postal Service
How on earth can businesses be expected to survive in the recession. We are a firm of national solicitors representing clients all over the country in a variety of Courts and a variety of road traffic offences.
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.
Get off your Dring Driving Charge courtesy of the CPS
As a road traffic specialist solicitor defending motorists across the Country on a daily basis frustration is starting to set in with the inefficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. Yesterday I attended at Court to represent a man facing an allegation of driving with excess alcohol who had been arrested on Christmas Eve. He had blown a breath sample of 41 and was therefore allowed to swap that sample for a sample of blood or urine. Not unsurprisingly as the police do in every case they decided that they would take a sample of blood from the Defendant. Immediately upon being told this the Defendant explained that he did not like needles. In the police’s indifferent way the officers decided to ignore the fact that the suspect was telling them he had a legitimate reason for not providing a blood sample but would be quite happy to provide a urine sample and the police then just simply charged the Defendant on the basis of his breath sample. Had the police, who are supposed to be trained in the law, realised that all they had to do was check the veracity of the suspect’s tension regarding his needle phobia with a doctor then perhaps they would not have made any mistakes. Despite that, they charged him and the decision to charge was authorised by the Crown Prosecution Service, (probably because the police officers had not told the CPS lawyer of the suspect’s tension regarding his needle phobia) and the Defendant went to Court. He made his first appearance before the Court on 10 January 2011 where immediately it was pointed out to the Court and the Prosecution that the Defendant had a legitimate defence in this case because the police had not followed the drink drive procedure. Be that as it may instead of reviewing the decision to charge and prosecute a trial date was fixed. That trial date was in June and it was apparent that when the matter came before the Court the prosecuting lawyer had not looked at the file or CCTV evidence whatsoever. That file and CCTV evidence was reviewed by myself and the CPS lawyer at Court who, because she had no authority to discontinue cases, had to seek an adjournment of the case. The matter was then listed before the Court for trial on 12 October 2011 and from June until 12 October 2011 nobody had reviewed the file at the CPS office. This caused unnecessary uncertainty for a suspect as to what the future held for him and also added expense in terms of extra legal costs. Upon arrival at Court on 12 October 2011 finally somebody at the Crown Prosecution Service office had reviewed the file, watched the video and accepted that what was told to the Prosecution on 12 January 2011 was in actual fact correct and the matter was discontinued. Another happy client for Sweetmans Solicitors in defending road traffic offences but one that could quite easily have been dealt with far more expeditiously and professionally had the Prosecution listened to what the Defence told them on 12 January 2011 and then actually reviewed their own file. Somewhere along the line somebody in the Prosecution office needs to actually prepare their own files. Continually as defence solicitors we are berated by Courts and Prosecution for not telling what the legal issues in cases are. Indeed now there is move by the Prosecution to keep threatening the Defence with sanctions under the CPR Rules for not identifying defences. Perhaps there should be some sanctions for the Prosecution for pursuing hopeless cases when a simple review would have firstly saved an uncertain future for a Defendant suspect but more importantly saved the tax payer thousands of pounds in terms of prosecuting a hopeless case. That case had three appearances before the Court. On two occasions two police officers attended Court to give oral evidence and on neither occasion were they actually required to so do. What a waste of public money.
BT Versitility System
Having just spent almost a week in our American office struggling to have contact back in the UK, we have finally got BT to accept that when they installed the BT Versitility Broadband VoIP Sytem it did not allow enough bandwidth for the service to actually work.
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 true cost of running a car
Following last week’s Tonight with Trevor McDonald programme on the true cost of running a car it is about time there was more protest by the law abiding motorist who registers, taxes and insures his motor vehicle in his own name.
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?