|
First of all the points count from the date of the offence so any offence committed prior to 25th June 2010 would mean those points were valid. It is irrelevant when the case comes to court.
As to the facts:
The red light offence and the due care are both dealt with as a single incident so the points are not cumulative.
So even though the red light offence carries three points and the the driving without due care and attention carries three to nine points the maximum number of points the potential tarriff is not added together - your maximum risk is 9 points.
While 9 points would see you at risk of a ban under totting up the court would need to take the view that the Driving Without Due Care and Attention offence was of the greatest degree of seriousness to award points at this level. Your driving would need to be extremely reckless. It is extremely unlikely that the court will take this view.
Starting with the supposed red light offence then it depends how the lights are set up. If you were in laned traffic and there were two complete sets of traffic lights, red, amber and green on both, and the "straight on" lane showed a green "ahead" arrow while the right hand lane showed a red light you would be guilty of passing through a red light.
However if as you say the main (round) light was green but the side mounted arrow showing you had priority had not illuminated then you are not guilty of a red light offence. In these circumstances you are allowed to pass through the light (and indeed turn right) but must give way to oncoming traffic which has priority. In the circumstances you outline any remotely competent solicitor should be able to ensure that the red light offence is dropped long before the hearing or the case goes before the court. That does not remove 9 as the maximum points availaible to the court but it greatly reduces the chances of you being given nine points.
The due care offence is more difficult. You passed through on green but you were seeking to turn right. Two points would be relevant:
- whether the vehicle you hit was seeking to turn right - across your path - or intended to go straight on
- if he was seeking to go straight on where the final impact took place - ie if you were crossing his lane
If the vehicle was intending to go straight on then there is almost certainly primae facie evidence of a lack of due care. The offence requires the court to assess what level of care "might be expected of a reasonably diligent driver" and decide whether on the occasion of the alleged offence whether the driver's standards if driving fell significantly below what might be reasonably expected. Should you fail to persuade them otherwise with your evidence and they agree that your driving standards fell below the required level a guilty verdict will be returned and the court will seek to make a judgement based on the evidence as to the severity of the penalty they should impose.
Absolute defences to driving without due care and attention can include:
- unconsciousness/sudden illness or medical incapacity at the wheel
- duress - if you felt you were threatened and needed to quickly get away
- sudden mechanical defect - such as a tyre bursting resulting in you swerving across the road
- assisting in arrest of offenders - pursuing others who have committed an offence
- authorised motoring event - such as a rally or TT taking place on the public road
However I owuld be very loathe to introduce your pre-exisiting medical condition as a defence as the court may well take this as contrary evidence that if you knew you werre ill you should not have been driving at all.
Given the circumstances as to the case and taking into account the facts as you have presented them my view is the red light offence should be dropped but as there was a collision there is a likelihood that the prosecution will wish to proceed with the Due Care unless - on checking your case some other undeclared fact or evidence or loophole can be found.
However with a decent advocate it is very likely that you may be able to persuade the court that this was a minor lapse of attention in which case the likelihood is the court would impose a sentence which was very much at the lower end of the points scale. As your pre-existing points are due to come off very soon this should not be too much or a hardship.
In the event that your solicitor makes a complete hash of defending your case and nine points are awarded you have the basis of an excellent Exceptional Hardship argument which should ensure they do not ban you or impose any disqualification of any kind.
I would be interested to know who is dealing with your case however. Because of the potentially high points tariff this is not a case you should be taking to a general solicitor's practice where your layer might be doing a bit of divorce in the morning and a little light conveyancing in the afternoon.
|
|
Thank you for the in-depth reply!
I am using a local solicitor who do not specialise in this kind of thing. But I'm tight on budget as it is without solicitor fees and court fees (and in full time employ so unable to claim any free support) - as well as the fact my insurance skyrocketted after the claim.
I was hoping the red light thign could be thwarted sooner rather than later - the solicitor is going to fax them before the case to try get the matter rectified. I might even try get a photo of the lights to prove the point more clearly.
I fully intend to plead guilty to due care, as I have no defense to plead not guilty. I will hope for leniency given that the only mistake I made was being tired / temporary lapse of concentration and that my car is very much essential to work and my relationship.
|
|
I would avoid "tired" as they will say you put others at risk by continuing to drive.
If there is no other defence then a "momentary lapse of concentration in a long and exemplary driving record" is what you want as your mitigation.
|
|
Thank you :)
I'll let you know how I get on if you want?
|
|
Hi Silkhj,
I have no answers for you but I`ve noticed that you seem to be really going through a bad patch at the moment. Here`s wishing you well and that hoping that your luck will soon improve.
I`m sure it will, by the law of averages and that you will soon have all of these difficulties behind you.
All the best and take care.
oilrag
|
|
Be aware also that representing yourself without a solicitor can also act in your favour and remind a magistrate that you are hard up anyway and need your job.
It might also be possible to claim that the route you took was one you were unaccustomed to and it was a simple error that had unfortunate consequences, especially as you do get green lights which do not filter, i.e with only one green light for go in all directions.
|
|
I would also focus on your job and not so much on your relationship (despite the fact you may feel it is important), the magistrate will not want you grovelling too much, be specific, direct, accept your mistakes, highlight your good history and a gentle reminder that we are all human.
If you can persuade the mag. that you are being promoted to a position further away, the mag. will look more favourably on you. Under 10 mile road journey commute is definitely bussable or cyclable and the mag. will consider this.
|
|
troychocolate - Would the magistrate be likely to consider that I am female, and without a car would be walking alone down back streets in the dark to get a bus stop and then waiting on my own in the dark? I do early shifts so half the year it would be the case. This is really my biggest concern, I've never felt safe in such situations.
I spoke to solicitor last night and she said she will fax the relevant office about the red light being wrong, but it could take time and might just have to get it taken off on date of the hearing in the court room.
Also regarding the solicitor.. I didn't feel comfortable respresenting myself as I have never set foot in a court room and know nothing about law. And I am worried I would say the wrong thing.. I have a habit of being too honest and from what I'm hearing it would work against me to admit being ill or tired.
I take that route to work every day and it's on my police interview. It's also written down that I was driving in later than usual that day (probably explains why filter was off, it'd be on 2 hours earlier). I had been asked to do a late shift that day.. sigh.
Edited by silkhj on 03/06/2010 at 08:58
|
|
|
|
|
"Exceptional hardship" which is what you would be arguing if you were at risk of a ban under totting up is not an easy argument to make.
Statistics show that when an exceptional hardship argument it succeeds in 37% of cases when the client self-represents but in cases where there is representation the figure increases to 73%. Both specialist legal firms used by Honest John succeed in 85% plus or exceptional hardship arguments.
The reason is a widespread ingorance of what the courts consider to be "exceptional hardship" - you would certainly not succeed in your argument if you were to base it on being hard up or that you would lose your job.
The court takes the view that the ban will inevitably cause the potentially banned driver some difficulties but you are the guilty party - exceptional hardship arguments succeed when you can show that the hardship is likely to be caused to a third party who is innocent of any offence - **so the hardship caused by your actions is likely to be suffered by someone else.**
Thus economic arguments can be brought into play but ideally you need to assert that other people will suffer as a loss of your ability to earn, co-workers rely on you going out and bringing in sales, your boss will suffer economically if he has to rebuild relationships with your clients etc.
If your car is not essential for your job then it has to come down to other issues - such as people who rely on you to get their shopping etc. There is a long list of arguments that may be used but every case is different and you will certainly benefit in having proper representation in court.
|
|
|
|
|
Oilrag - Thank you!! I have indeed had a bad year so far - I've not even mentioned the £60 fine I had for turning left off a road too early and being in the bus lane a few car lengths. Or the fact i bought a HIP 2 weeks before they got abolished :p
Maybe things will improve, I had a very positive telephone interview last night.
If i do get banned I have friends and family who will help me relocate. The biggest hardship would be finding a suitable place to rent that is in walking/cycling distance to prospective new job.
The reason I have been so restless about it is it just doesn't feel right that there's even a small risk of a ban. Points yes.. fine yes.. I made a mistake so ok. But to ban me after 14 years of driving in an accident where thankfully noone was hurt.. it does seem incredibly harsh. Yet given my luck so far this year, deep down I can picture it happening.
Edited by silkhj on 03/06/2010 at 08:53
|
|
Stop being so melodramatic. I would find it very unlikely they will tip the balance into 9 pts as the mag. will know this is potential ban.
If they do go for 9 pts, claim poverty. It is used regularly in these circumstances and the fact that a bus / pedestrian route would add fear and potential danger to your commute goes in your fvour.
Highlight the fact that the filter only works at certain times and you were not aware of this.
You are only human and the mag will understand this.
|
|
Mag. court is very simple. It is typically older building in centre of town somewhere. There will be lots of things going on as a number of mag's. will sit on any one day in different courts (rooms basically). There may even be other things going on like weddings believe it or not.
The court room may be modern but will have a mag. sitting on a raised platform at front of room, the police will be there (prob. 2 of them). They will read out their charges. You will be asked to plead guilty or innocent and if you are not asked to state any mitigating circumstances then you should ask politely.
I still think you will be looked more favourably upon without your solicitor. A single female with limited funds and potential driving ban (which will mean potential loss of job, relocation, new commute). Added to this your nerves in court. The mag's are human as well you know.
They should make their decision on the spot in the courtroom and all relevant paperwork is then dealt with afterwords. You;ll spend more time waiting to go inot court than in the court room itself. It's no big deal.
|
|
Hah, wasn't trying to be melodaramatic - these are genuine fears from someone who has never been on the wrong side of the law.
But I appreciate your advice. Unfortunately I've paid upfront for my solicitor, like I said it wasn't terribly expensive and I thought it would be a wise move.. :(
One thing I forgot to ask, they ask you to state your savings. I'm not looking for a loophole but I think technically I have none - an offset mortage uses your savings to work towards the mortgage and as such my bank balance is something like minus 33k..
Edited by silkhj on 03/06/2010 at 10:45
|
You are better to be represented as you are more likely to succeed as I explained above.
Court can be a formidable experience if you don't know what you are doing and having someone there who does understand the procedures and the way the courts work will provide reassurance.
Troychocolate has some factual errors in his posts on the way the courts work but he is correct that it is extremely unlikely you will get 9 points and the experience will not be as bad as you probably anticipate it will be.
On the statement of means you need to show what you have in your current account and in your savings account. The most important thing they will be seeking to establish is how much disposable income you have after reasonable living costs and your mortgage is paid.
The fine you will get (assuming you plead guilty as you say) will only be partially reliant on your statement of means so don't do anything to make it stand out.
|
|
I'm not trying to avoid a larger fine, I just genuinely don't know how to fill it in. The incoming and outgoing sections are obvious, but the last bit asking for savings isn't. Like you say I'm worried if I put 0 it'll raise eyebrows.
But an offset mortgage means no savings - I am allowed to "borrow" up to a certain amount instead. Every penny I earn counts towards lowering interest and I won't have a positive balance until the mortgage is paid in full.
I have no savings account other than an old barclays one I more or less ran dry a while back.
If my house were to sell tomorrow then I'd have significant "savings" but I can't imagine that this is how it works else anyone with a house would be classed as having a lot of savings.
Lastly just wanted to thank you again for the reassuring words.. :)
Edited by silkhj on 03/06/2010 at 15:20
|
|
Put your savings in at zero as you don't have any. They are only interested in liquid assets amd surplus income - not what you can borrow, The fundamental point is that unless you want to pay any fine off at £5 a week your means will largely be irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
Please do.
|
|
Am I the only one feeling less than sympathetic to the OP?
They've got 3 points already.
They admit to 'I've not even mentioned the £60 fine I had for turning left off a road too early and being in the bus lane'.
Now they're being prosecuted for turning across the front of an oncoming car by the sound of it.
I thought the points system was a method of removing unsafe drivers from the roads.
|
|
On the contrary Tom, I have every sympathy with the OP.
There seem to be multiple pressures and understandable fears over Court - and what are in essence just seeming to be minor breaches of traffic legistlation.
I`ve seen at first hand (working) how much discomfort and distress can be caused by having to worry over issues that may seem nothing to others - but can become all encompassing to the person involved.
It`s possible to lay awake at night unable to sleep over things like this and feel powerless to do anything about it.
I`m not saying OP is in this situation -- but in case she is she should be cut some slack.
The good thing about this problem - (and something to hang on to) Is that it`s very likely it`s a `time limited problem` and that it will be over following the Court hearing.
Not only that, but that the appearence in Court will be brief and not live up to any horrors of imagination.
I`ve been in Magistrates Court myself on hundreds of occasions as a Social Worker - It`s much better to have a Solicitor with you.
Again, to Silkh, Best Regards and Good Luck.
Edited by oilrag on 04/06/2010 at 08:36
|
|
Thank you..
Yes it does seem a very big thing to someone who has never set foot in a courtroom, someone who actually respects the traffic laws.
To be honest this all came at a really bad time, like I said, I was well underway with looking for a new job and seeking to relocate and sell my house. A lot of stress as it is..
The good news is, I had a telephone interview the other night - and we really liked each other- so Ihave a formal interview next Tuesday!
I think Tom is also missing the point that I've been convicted of something that simply didn't happen, something which contradicts the witness statement. This is my biggest fear, that I end up with a nasty magistrate who won't see the conviction is in error and I then have to plead not guilty and have even more stress going to trial. I should probably take a photo of the filter lights so that it is clear they are the give way / single set sort.
The irony here is had those filter lights been the "dual set" type i.e. two red/amber/arrows then there would have been no way this accident would ever have occured. I would have seen red, known to stop, simple. Not oh it's green off I go..
Edited by silkhj on 04/06/2010 at 08:50
|
|
Talking about `multiple stressors` - Many years ago I once stopped at a green light while still thinking of a just completed mental health (risk) assessment.
The driver behind didn`t like that - went purple with rage.
But, `that`s life` as they say.... ;-)
Edited by oilrag on 04/06/2010 at 09:03
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't asking for sympathy.
Those 3 points are all I've ever had in 14 years, and even then at 6am on a quiet road and driving *below* the speed limit, decelerating to turn left, just missing an amber. It was a robot. I very much doubt a policeman would have given the points as I was not driving dangerously.
It saddens me you'd class me an unsafe driver for this when lets see, I could have floored it and done a nice sharp left and easily got through the amber. THAT is unsafe driving, yet if I'd done it, I'd have zero points right now. So I don't think things are as black and white as you make out.
The bus lane thing was blatantly police just trying to get some income - I could have contested it as there are no road markings to indicate when one would turn left. I did it four car lengths ahead, apparently three is ok. That's what they told me, but sounded like they made it up as not seen any such thing in the highway code.
Several people were on the lane longer than me, but with only 3 police officers there many of them didn't get pulled at all. One van even drove off, ignoring them - and they didn't even take his reg number. You're saying me being one car lane too early in an empty bus lane was "unsafe"? I'm not sure I could ever agree with you on that.
As for the latest incidecent - are you telling me you've never had a lapse of concentrattion or near miss? That's what this was, a lapse of concentration that we ALL get sometimes. Sadly it couldn't have been at a worse time.
All in all I think you're being a bit harsh, which is why I thought I'd make the above points. I hope the magistrate isn't like you - because I'll have you know I'm one of the safer albeit unlucky drivers in this horrid town where people generally ignore speed limits and traffic signals. And you shouldn't presume to know otherwise.
Edited by silkhj on 04/06/2010 at 08:43
|
|
I am a wee bit with bathtub tom on this one
what did that golfer say "the more i practice the luckier i get" this with reference to your "unlucky" comment. i.e it is symptomatic of driving skills?
Though I do ABSOLUTLY sympathise with your bus lane mishap, I was proper twitchy the last time I drove in Belfast
However I get very very distressed at the lies people tell to "get off" ie pleading hardship , mostly probably spurious, if Northern Ireland is any guide as to levels of honesty.
So? who is the bigger criminal? the person "speeding" in totally safe road conditions...........who does NOT have any accidents.
Or the unlucky one with perhaps a spate of minors who concocts a story to keep their licence.
Which is most likely to kill an child??
just a thought
M
PS
I "think" you would be very very unlucky to lose your licence in this instance.
This Without any specialist knowledge, simply based on gut instinct
|
|
Well I'm neither - I've already said exactly what happened without concocting anything. And I dont' speed.
Speeding is actually a sore point with me. I don't like to speed but I do feel safer driving at the "speed of the traffic" as otherwise i get people up my rear end all the time. Point in case the other day up Queens road at 40mph (the limit) - guy behind me clearly agitated I was only driving at the speed limit, took over me on wrong side of the road. My passenger (bit of an idiot) gesticulated at him, which he saw and reacted by slamming on brakes in front of me and going into reverse gear to try and cause me to collide. I manged to avoid him and he drove off.
It's easy to put mistakes down to luck but I've already admitted I must have had a slip in concentration so it's not like i completely blame luck. I do think if I'd been there 3 seconds earlier or later it wouldn't have happened - and that people do lapse concentration all the time and do have near misses all the time, so is that luck or not? What if they'd had that lapse a few seconds earlier and knocked someone over?
Until you can say with hand on heart you are able to focus 100% of the time, fully aware of everything in front and to the side and rear of you, then you are not and never will be a perfect driver. You'll have mishaps, and hopefully they'll not cause an accident (I expect you'd feel a bit sheepish after judging the likes of me).
I know there are drivers out there who blatantly don't give a monkeys, use mobile in car and generally drive without giving any thought to their surrounding. I'm not one of those. Ironically I know one, and he's never had an accident - just plenty of near misses. He reckons it is because he is a good driver.. sigh.. sometimes I think there are no good drivers, only lucky ones. Yes theres the L word again, but I'm sorry it's clearly a factor when I see nutters with clean licences and good drivers with convictions.
Oh I just realised, I'm a woman so maybe some of you are assuming I'm some ditzy blonde who can't drive - would explain last couple of negative comments :p
|
|
>>I'm a woman so maybe some of you are assuming I'm some ditzy blonde who can't drive
If you read my reply earlier, you'll see I made absolutely no reference to your gender. Your comment on the other hand could be regarded as sexist and derogatory to those with a certain hair colour.
I'm old, fat and bald. Any comment?
|
|
err.. I could say it explains the bad temper? :p
I just assumed you would have read the thread before commenting and therefore you'd know I was female and you might be "one of those" that thinks we just can't drive.
I'm a good driver. Probably a bit over-cautious after the accident, but that's for the best I'd imagine.
Also - just out of interest where do you drive? Because, driving in Bradford is a test of any drivers skill, on a daily basis. When I visit my other half in Chi, it's driving bliss. So is Milton Keynes. Driving anywhere other than here is pretty much easy mode really.
Not that any of this excuses my accident or mistake, however I don't think I should be chastised as much as you seem to think for having one accident in 14 years, when almost every twist and turn here is an accident waiting to happen. Dodging pedestrians who think that the correct way to cross a road is to walk in front of a moving car with their hand out. And not to mention we have the largest number of un-insured drivers (who, by the way, get penalised far less than I'm about to be IF they ever get caught). And best of all, many confusing road lanes and traffic signals, no set standards, combined with a generally low level of driver skill (see prior un-insured driver comment).
Edited by silkhj on 04/06/2010 at 15:52
|
|
Whilst not wholly unsympathetic to the evident strains on you, I think that your removal from the road for a brief time would be a Good Thing, as it would allow you to reflect on the stupidity of driving whilst tired and ill.
Be thankful that you didn't kill somebody.
Otherwise counsel for the prosecution would love the evidence you have posted here in order to send you down for a long time.
|
|
If everyone stopped driving because they were tired and ill, it would likely cut traffic by more than 50% - probably a lot more ;-)
|
|
Mapmaker
Yours is a mean spirited and wholly unwarranted post which reaches an idiotic conclusion.
The OP was involved in a minor transgression at a traffic light which may well have comprised a lack of due care (to which she has admitted) but no more than that. At worst - and in the most extreme circumstances - she could get 9 points which could result in a ban. There is no possibility whatsoever of imprisonment - let alone a lengthy term - as you seem to suggest.
The reality is she is looking at minor penalty points and a fine -- and nothing is to be gained by you pretending to be Judge Jeffreys and donning the hanging wig when you have clearly no knowledge whatsoever about road traffic law, liability issues, road traffic offences and the penalties that might reasonably follow.
Unless you have some reasonably well-informed opinion founded on fact you might best add to the debate by abstaining from any further contributions unless you have something useful and significant to add that is not designed to scare the be-jaysus out of people thinking of posting who are seeking a little bit of good advice and some well-informed community support.
Edited by LucyBC on 04/06/2010 at 18:08
|
|
There's all sorts in the world. Some have no sympathy and think we should all be perfect like they apparently are. Heaven forbid they ever have an accident. At the very least I would hope henceforth they make note of any minor c0ckups they make on the road, and stop to think "hmmm if that'd been a second later I could have caused an accident, maybe I shouldn't be so judgemental after all".
..What if the magistrate is like him? ;/
I came here because I am scared, especially about the "incorrect" conviction.. Some people will naturally think I'm bending the truth and I'm some crazed loon who smashed into another car on purpose or maybe drove with her eyes closed.
My friends and family all think this is absurd, and know how much I've suffered already from the accident itself. Most people find it hard to beleive that an accident where everything is settled in insurance could ever end up going this far.
My gut feel is the incorrect conviction of red light failure to comply has led immediately to due care, as really, they have no evidence that I lacked care and attention. Otherwise every single accident out there would have at least one driver being taken to court, as there's always someone to blame.
Edited by silkhj on 04/06/2010 at 22:19
|
|
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I suspect we've all been involved in panel bending crunches and I'm sure the police have been involved in many of them, but have decided to leave it to the insurance companies to resolve (the police have got more important things to deal with).
In your case, someone's decided a prosecution is applicable, I wonder why?
LucyBC would appear to be giving excellent, free advice on this site, but she has to earn a living by charging some customers. I note she's suggesting some posters to contact her direct. You can draw your own conclusions.
A driving licence is not a right, it's a priviledge that has to be earned by proving your ability to pass a driving test. Thereafter It's policed, the points system is one way of keeping careless drivers from holding a licence.
|
|
Anyway, Just realized you are a new member, welcome to the forum, silkhj ;-)
We tend to not have many female members and it seems to me that we ought to be more welcoming as more female members would likely give a better balance and perspective to the place.
I`ve always had a perspective on life, that if you can do anything in your day to make someone else feel better about something - then do it. You know - something to give a lift - a laugh perhaps - as a bit of an antidote to the general negativity that can sometimes seem to prevail.
To that extent - on another part of the Forum ( I have a Question - non Motoring) I try to write up Quizzes and other stuff, which is intended to give at least a smile (don`t know if it works though -- lot`s of views, few replies)
You would be very welcome to participate there - we are after all, allegedly trying to attract new Forum members.
As for points. Everyone driving on UK roads is only three heartbeats from (another;-) three points - or so it seems at times......
Edited by oilrag on 05/06/2010 at 07:19
|
|
Yet if you're as perfect as Ton you'd never come close to points, right? ;)
Thanks for the pointer, I shall certainly have a nosy!
|
|
Sigh, the witness statement says the lights were green but the police officer writing the report clearly neglected to read this when giving me a red light conviction and a resultant due care offense. or, he thought they were red-light controlled filters. be nice if he'd checked of course.
I've read up on due care and it isn't anything to do with amount of damage caused, but rather driver neglect. So your bumper crunches are just as likely to give a driver due care as my head on collision.
A failure to comply with red light is one of the myriad of reasons you can get due care. The big what if here is, what if the whole thing came about because of some officers neglect to fully read my case and get the facts?
I don't know why you'd think I'm lying as it'd be a fruitless excercise if I didn't have it in writing. I protest because I've been incorrectly convicted, perhaps on both offenses! I don't suppose you'd know how that feels if you haven't been there.
But now that it's gotten this far, I can't fight against due care as the offence is too broad and can be given for practically any reason. It would be David vs Golliath. Unless they have the honesty to admit they made a mistake on the red light and this throws the whole case into question. Yeah right.. honest people are hard to come by.
Lucy is indeed giving excellent advice and I shall be recommending her should any friends/family ever need this advice. If I'd come here before paying for a solicitor already, I would certainly be asking her for a quote.
Your whole mentality is that the police can't make mistakes and anyone with points is a careless driver. Even I know that isn't true.
Edited by silkhj on 05/06/2010 at 09:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
