Lord Ahmed, who was imprisoned for 12 weeks for sending and receiving text messages while driving on the M1 has been released from prison following a successful appeal against his sentence.

His lawyers successfully persuaded the Court of Appeal to suspend his 12 weeks imprisonment for 12 months. He has served 16 days of his sentence already.

Lord Ahmed admitted sending and receiving text messages and therefore pleaded guilty. Sadly, Lord Ahmed’s car collided with a car that had crashed on the fast lane of the M1, killing the driver of the other vehicle. The sentencing judge made it clear that Lord Ahmed’s sending and receiving of text messages was not linked to the fatal collision. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that it was an exceptional course of action to suspend the 12 week sentence for 12 months.

This case is an example of the importance of appealing motoring law cases in order to seek justice.

In early March 2009, the Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick announced that the Government is considering cutting the national speed limit on single carriageway rural roads to 50 mph. A consultation will be launched by the Department of Transport in early summer 2009 and the change could come into effect in early 2010.

Mr Fitzpatrick has considered the almost 3000 deaths and 30,000 serious injuries on British roads in 2007 to be unacceptable and hopes that this reduction in the speed limit on rural roads will save 200-250 lives per year. Interestingly, in 2007 over two-thirds of car crash fatalities occurred on rural roads.

The national speed limit would be reduced on every single rural road. However, the respective local authority would have the power to increase the speed limit back to 60 mph if justified.

Worryingly, it seems that the Department for Transport wishes to introduce numerous average speed cameras, also known as SPECS, across the country to enforce a new 50 mph general speed limit. The company behind the speed cameras claim that there is a 60% reduction in deaths or serious injuries on stretches covered by the speed cameras. We are sure there will also be a rise in the number of speeding tickets issued on rural roads too.

Mr Fitzpatrick highlights the unsuitability of rural roads with bends, dips and difficult conditions for 60 mph driving. We have to question why a blanket reduction to 50 mph is therefore necessary when the Road Safety Minister seems to only be concerned with roads with hazards on.

There is also a risk of alienating a significant proportion of motorists. In 2008, the AA surveyed over 17,000 motorists. In that survey, less than half the motorists backed the 50 mph speed limit and nearly two-fifths opposed it. The fear that almost 2 out of every 5 drivers will not agree with the speed limit and therefore some will not follow it, bringing about more overtaking, which inevitably leads to high risk of collisions and therefore deaths or serious injuries, is not to be ignored.

Here at roadtrafficlawdirect.com, we urge the Road Safety Minister to reconsider the proposed 50 mph blanket speed limit for rural roads. Instead, we suggest that a survey is undertaken of all the rural roads, including their junctions. From this survey, roads and junctions that are either proven to be dangerous due to collisions, deaths and serious injuries over the years can be adapted to make them safer. Roads might be adapted by imposing a speed limit below 60 mph, which may be as low as 30 or 40 mph, improving road markings and signs, and altering junctions so that they are safer. However, our fear is that this suggestion will not be welcomed by the Road Safety Minister because it would cost money whereas average speed cameras earn money through speeding tickets.

On 3 March 2009, the Attorney-General referred the case of Phillipa Curtis to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the 21 months imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving was unduly lenient.

In early February 2009, Curtis was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving by sending text messages while driving, causing her to collide with a parked car, killing one person. In addition to the 21 months prison sentence, she was also disqualified from driving for 3 years.

The Court of Appeal will now look at the case once again. If they decide that the 21 months imprisonment was unduly lenient, they have the power to increase the sentence. If they do not think that the sentence was unduly lenient, it will remain the same.

On 25 February 2009 Lord Ahmed was sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment and banned from driving for one year for sending and receiving five text messages while driving in the dark on a motorway.

Sadly, shortly after sending and receiving the text messages, Lord Ahmed collided with a car that had crashed on the fast lane of a motorway because the driver had been drinking. The driver of the other vehicle was killed in the crash.

However, the sentencing judge made it clear that Lord Ahmed’s texting had no link to the fatal collision.

The sentencing judge did say that Lord Ahmed had to be imprisoned because of the ‘prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving’, by which he meant sending and receiving the text messages.

This case is an example of the seriousness of using a handheld mobile phone while driving. It demonstrates that even those without any criminal record who have served the community are at risk of imprisonment where it has caused them to drive dangerously.

In December 2008, West Somerset Coroner Michael Rose expressed concerns regarding high speed driving undertaken by the police and the fact that over 200 deaths have occurred since 2002 during high speed police driving.

The Coroner had ruled that Christopher Mollan’s death on the morning of 9^th June 2008 was accidental and a police officer was not at fault. The late Mr Mollan had pulled onto the A39 near Bridgwater from a country road. The police officer’s BMW collided with the late Mr Mollan’s Nissan at a speed between 52 mph and 78 mph. The police officers were racing to a report of a firearm being seen. The Coroner accepted that often the police officers were not at fault but questioned whether high speed police driving should be limited to responding to terrorist activities, scenes where weapons were present and drink drive cases where the driver could cause a fatality. He went onto question whether high speed police driving in other circumstances was necessary and recognised that it presented a grave public danger.

As a result, the Coroner wrote to the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. He recommended that police officers should have to obtain the authority of a Police Inspector in circumstances where it is unclear whether or not a possible offence necessitated high speed police driving. He also recommended the use of ‘black boxes’ in police vehicles to record their speed.

We will have to wait and see the reaction of the Association of Chief Police Officers. However, the sheer number of people dying during high speed police driving must demand action to be taken.

From 31 March 2009 a police officer or vehicle examiner (from the Vehicle and Operators Service Agency) can demand that a motorist provides a payment at the roadside where a fine for a motoring offence may be payable in the future.

The police officer or examiner must have reason to believe that the person has committed a motoring offence. The motorist must then fail to provide a satisfactory address. The motorist will have failed to provide a satisfactory address if they cannot provide an address in the UK at which the police officer or examiner considers it likely that it would be possible to find the motorist whenever necessary to do so in connection with the alleged offence.

It is interesting that the police officer must be in uniform and the vehicle examiner must be able to produce proof of his authority.

The amount demanded varies with the alleged offence but can be up to £900 for multiple alleged offences, or £300 for a single alleged offence.

When the police officer or examiner makes a legitimate demand for payment at the roadside, payment can be made in person using cash, a credit card or a debit card. Alternatively, payment can be made by telephone using a credit card or debit card. The motorist must then be provided with a written receipt of such a payment being made.

If the motorist refuses to make such a roadside payment, the police officer or examiner may prohibit the use of the vehicle that was being used at the time of the alleged motoring offence. Please note that this does not prohibit the motorist from driving other vehicles but it does prohibit other motorists from driving the relevant vehicle. Also, the relevant vehicle may be immobilised pending payment of the roadside demand.

It is an offence to drive a vehicle subject to such a prohibition and carries up to a £5000 fine.

If the alleged motoring offence is dealt with by way of fixed penalty notice or court proceedings and a fine is imposed, the roadside payment will be taken into account to pay or part pay the fine imposed.

However, the motorist is entitled to a refund if they are acquitted, or are convicted, but no fine is imposed, or a fine is imposed which is an amount lower than the roadside demand (in which case the difference will be refunded). Also, if the police do not proceed against the motorist then the motorist is entitled to a refund of the roadside demand after a 12 month period or a shorter period if the police are time-barred. For example, a speeding prosecution cannot be commenced more than 6 months after the date of the alleged offence and therefore a motorist who has paid a roadside demand would be entitled to a return of the sum paid at the roadside after approximately 6 months.

It is clear that the new power given to police officers and vehicle examiners is aimed at securing financial payment from drivers who live outside the UK and those who live in the UK but without a permanent address. However, we strongly suspect that police officers will use the power even where a motorist provides a permanent address but cannot then provide proof of that address. For that reason, we advise all motorists to carry their photocard driving licence with them to prove their identity and permanent address to a police officer. It should then not be necessary for a police officer to demand a road side payment.

Average speed camera – A type of speed camera which measures the speed of a vehicle between two points on a road.

CAMIC – An approved device at police stations for measuring the level of alcohol in a motorist’s breath.

Careless driving – An offence carrying 3 to 9 penalty points or a disqualification from driving. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Dangerous driving – An offence carrying a minimum disqualification from driving of one year and up to 2 years imprisonment. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Defective brakes – An offence carrying 3 penalty points or a disqualification from driving.

Defective lights – An offence which can lead to the imposition of up to a £2500 fine.

Defective steering – An offence carrying 3 penalty points or a disqualification from driving.

Defective tyres – An offence carrying 3 penalty points or a disqualification from driving.

Disqualification – A punishment which can be imposed by a court forbidding you from driving. A disqualification can be given for any offence where points can be imposed. Also, a disqualification must be given (subject to successfully arguing exceptional hardship, see below) if you reach 12 penalty points on your licence.

Driving offences – The general term for offences alleged to have been committed while driving.

Driving without due care and attention – An offence carrying 3 to 9 penalty points or a disqualification from driving. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Exceptional hardship – A loophole to avoid an automatic 6 months disqualification for having 12 or more penalty points on your licence.

Failing to provide – The general term for the various offences of failing to provide a roadside breath sample, a breath sample at the police station, a sample of blood or urine at the police station or refusing to consent to a sample of blood or urine to be analysed. These offences can carry an automatic 12 months disqualification. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Fixed Penalty Notice – An offer by the police to accept a guilty plea by post to an alleged offence. An acceptance by the motorist does not have to be accepted by the court and therefore a court hearing may still be necessary. The number of penalty points and level of fine varies for different offences.

GATSO – A Home Office-approved speed camera which photographs a vehicle from behind.

Inconsiderate driving – An offence carrying 3 to 9 penalty points or a disqualification from driving. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Intoxyliser – An approved device at police stations for measuring the level of alcohol in a motorist’s breath.

Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations – The law which creates offences such as defective brakes, defective steering, defective tyres and exceeding plate weight.

Motoring offences – The general term for offences alleged to have been committed while driving.

National speed limit – The speed limit which applies unless a lower speed limit is indicated. It is 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways, and 60mph on single carriageways.

Notice of Intended Prosecution – A notice to the registered keeper of a vehicle that must be sent to them within 14 days of some alleged offences. The rules on this are complex and legal advice should be obtained. A failure by the police to comply with the rules will lead to an allegation being dropped.

Penalty points – Points that are endorsed on a driving licence following a conviction for most motoring offences, unless a disqualification is imposed instead. Penalty points remain live on your driving licence for 3 years from the date of the offence for the purposes of totting up (see “Totting up”, below). They remain on the face of the licence for 4 years, for administrative purposes.

Red light offence – An offence carrying 3 penalty points or a disqualification from driving.

Revocation – A decision by the DVLA to revoke a driving licence. This is not a disqualification because the motorist must apply for their licence as if they are a new driver. They must pass both the theory and practical driving tests again before being allowed to drive unsupervised.

Road Traffic Act 1988 – The Act of Parliament which creates most driving offences.

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 – The law which requires the DVLA to revoke a motorist’s driving licence if they have 6 live penalty points on their licence within two years of passing their practical test.

Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 – The Act of Parliament which governs the sentencing of most driving offences.

Road traffic offences – The common term used by lawyers for driving offences.

Roadside breath test – Commonly known as the breathalyser. A failure to provide a breath sample upon request is an offence (see “Failing to provide”, above) if done without reasonable excuse.

Section 172 notice – A form sent by the police to the registered keeper of a vehicle asking them to name the driver of that vehicle at a specific time and location. The form is then used as evidence during a prosecution for the alleged offence. A failure to complete the form is an offence that carries 6 penalty points or disqualification. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Special reasons – A loophole argument that can be put forward to a court that the motorist, although they have committed an offence, should not be automatically disqualified or receive mandatory penalty points. Legal advice should be obtained regarding this technique.

SPECS – A Home Office-approved system of average speed cameras.

Speed camera – A device used to measure the speed of a vehicle and produce photographic evidence which can be used in court. Common examples include GATSOs, SPECS and average speed cameras.

Speed gun- the commonly used term for a laser device which measures the speed of a vehicle.

Speeding – An offence carrying 3 to 6 penalty points or a disqualification from driving. Please click on the heading “The Law” for further details.

Speeding ticket – The common term for a Fixed Penalty Notice issued by the Police. These can be accepted by the motorist, the consequence being that 3 penalty points and a £60 fine will be imposed. Alternatively, they can be declined, which will lead to a summons (see below) being issued.

Summons – A document served upon a defendant informing that person that legal proceedings have commenced against them. It will require the defendant to either attend a court hearing or respond in writing.

Tachograph – A device to record a vehicle’s speed and the duration that the vehicle is moving or stationary. Tachographs are required by law on some vehicles and it is an offence to use those vehicles without one.

Totting up – The common term for the law which imposes an automatic six months ban on a motorist who accumulates 12 live points on their licence. The automatic six months ban will be avoided if an exceptional hardship (see “Exceptional hardship”, above) argument is successful.

VOSA – The Vehicle and Operators Service Agency. The government body which, in addition to the police, enforce offences such as the breach of tachograph requirements and defective vehicles.

Thames Valley Police announced in February 2009 that over 11,000 offences of using a mobile phone while driving have been recorded in less than 2 years in their area. Thames Valley Police covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

Any driver caught using a mobile phone while driving will receive either 3 penalty points on their driving licence or will be disqualified from driving. They will also receive a fine of up to £1000 (up to a £2500 fine in certain circumstances).

The dangers of using a mobile phone while driving were demonstrated in the case of Phillipa Curtis. In early February 2009, Curtis was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving by sending text messages while driving, causing her to collide with a parked car, killing one person. Curtis was imprisoned for 21 months and disqualified from driving for 3 years.

Companies and managers can now be held directly responsible for their employees’ negligent actions following the coming in to force of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 on 6 April 2008.

In terms of the use of company vehicles, the obligations imposed on employers go much further than those imposed by previous legislation and relate not only to vehicles provided by the employer but also to an employee’s own vehicle if it is used for work purposes. Employers must ensure that such vehicles are adequately insured for business use, are roadworthy and that the employee has a valid driving licence.

It is important to note that the new legislation affects all employers, from small to large businesses, as well as public sector employers. Small firms could be particularly affected as they often rely on managers using their own cars for work purposes and they may wish to consider offering a company car as an employee benefit on the basis that at least they can be satisfied that the vehicle is properly insured, has an MOT and is fit for use.

The new legislation means that the Police, in some cases jointly with the HSE, are likely to become more actively involved in investigating whether or not employers have carried out basic checks such as whether or not their employees have a valid driving licence. Where an employee is stopped by a police officer whilst driving in the course of their employment and has committed a driving offence such as using a hand-held mobile phone, the police can request a meeting with a director of the company. They can ask to be shown what risk assessments have been carried out, what policies are in place, and for evidence of training. If an employer fails or refuses to cooperate they can be issued with improvement notices and fines of up to £20,000 in the Magistrates Court or an unlimited amount in the Crown Court. Fines can be often be imposed both on companies and directors/managers personally.

If an offence committed by an employee whilst driving in the course of their business leads to loss of life, the company can be prosecuted if the offence came about because of the grossly inadequate way in which the company’s activities were managed. For example if an employer required an employee to drive long hours or simply failed to monitor the number of driving hours being undertaken. If found guilty of corporate manslaughter, a company faces unlimited fines. Additionally the Court can require publication of the offence, and specify the manner in which it is published. This is likely to tarnish a company’s reputation. If a company has properly carried out risk assessments, has satisfactory policies, keeps administration up to date and provides ongoing training, it will be in a stronger position to defend itself.

It is essential that if employers have not yet taken the following measures they take immediate steps to do so:

1.   Carry out a full and documented risk assessment

1. Set up administrative systems to check that employees have valid driving licences, that they are adequately insured, and that the vehicles they drive are roadworthy. These checks need to be repeated regularly. If this task appears too onerous then specialist checking companies exist and can help to ease the process.

1. Set up policies relating to driving at work, making it clear that any breach constitutes a disciplinary offence, provide ongoing training and back this up with relevant training records.

Employers ignore the potential consequences of not complying with the new Act at their peril. Unfortunately many businesses do not appreciate the extent of the changes, nor the fact that every employer is affected and not just the big corporations.

If you would like advice on how to comply with the new legislation or find yourself under the scrutiny of the police or facing prosecution then please contact Jeremy Scott, a specialist solicitor at roadtrafficlawdirect.com.

For many people facing a driving offence allegation, their greatest fear is of the prospect of appearing in court and not knowing what is happening. It is understandable than an ordinary person maybe intimidated by the formal court procedure and etiquette. They are worried they will address the magistrates incorrectly, or sit down at the wrong time or say something embarrassing.

Here are a few pieces of advice that may help you through the ordeal:

• The magistrates should be addressed as “Your Worships”, even if you are answering a question asked by just one of them.
• If it is a District Judge who is sitting in court, they should be addressed as Sir or Ma’am (pronounced “mam”).
• Whether you are pleading guilty or not guilty, you will have to speak in court. If you instruct a solicitor, they will speak on your behalf so you do not have to.
• It is likely that the magistrates will want to ask you questions. You should therefore consider beforehand what they might want to ask you and be clear on your answer. If you instruct a solicitor, they will cover these matters before the hearing and answer on your behalf in court.
• There will probably be quite a few people in court including the magistrates, a court clerk, a prosecutor, a probation officer and the press. It is useful to know who everybody is before the hearing.
• If you are worried about what to wear, it is advised that you dress for a court appearance as if you were going for an interview for an office job.
• You should be aware that you may have to wait outside the courtroom for a long time until it is your turn. Often people who are represented by a solicitor will go into court first. This is because their solicitors are in the courtroom and ask for their cases to be heard first.