February is the shortest month of the year but there has been no let up for our specialist road traffic lawyer. This month our road traffic lawyer has been traveling across the length and breadth of the country getting results and keeping our clients driving.
Below are a few of our highlights from February, to give you a flavour of the work that we do for our clients at Sheridan Road Traffic Law and to illustrate that no matter how desperate a situation may seem or whether you are guilty or not, there is always something we can do!
If you have been charged with a road traffic offence call us on 0141 465 3333, call into our Glasgow office or submit an enquiry online. We offer a free initial consultation giving you access to award winning advice and representation.
Glasgow Sheriff & Justice of the Peace Court-
Our client, Mr G, was charged with drink driving following an error of judgement on his part by driving his vehicle after having consumed some alcohol earlier in the day.
Our client accepted his guilt from the outset but it was essential to him that the penalty he received was restricted as best possible due to the significant effect that the loss of his driving licence would have on him, his family and his employer.
Following a comprehensive and bespoke plea in mitigation at Glasgow Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Court our specialist road traffic lawyer, Mr Sheridan, successfully persuaded the sheriff to restrict the disqualification period to the minimum period of 12 months and impose a fine.
Furthermore, our road traffic lawyer persuaded the Sheriff to allow our client to participate in the drink driving rehabilitation programme meaning that upon successful completion of the course our client’s disqualification period will be reduced to 9 months.
This is a great example of how we can assist drivers even if they are guilty!
Livingston Sheriff & Justice of the Peace Court-
Our client, Mr R, was charged with careless driving following an incident with two cyclists. It was alleged that he overtook the cyclists at excessive speed when it was unsafe to do so and braked harshly in front of them causing them to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
Our client maintained his innocence throughout proceedings and was adamant that he overtook the cyclists safely and within the speed limit. He accepted stopping his vehicle after completing the overtake manoeuvre to confront one of the cyclists whom he believed had been cycling in a dangerous manner by trying to prevent the overtake manoeuvre but was of the view that his driving could not be categorised as careless driving. With penalties of between 3-9 penalty points or possible disqualification Mr R had a lot at stake.
Following a thorough investigation into the case and a detailed locus inspection our specialist road traffic lawyer, Mr Sheridan, was successful in using his expertise and extensive experience to persuade the Procurator Fiscal to discontinue proceedings.
This goes to show that there are two side to every story, but importantly, we believe our client’s version of events and will fight to ensure the best possible outcome.
Stirling Sheriff & Justice of the Peace Court-
Our client, Mr M, was charged speeding at 62 mph in a 50 mph zone in rural Stirlingshire.
This charge was disputed by our client. He was adamant that he had been traveling within the speed limit and that either the police had detected another vehicle and stopped his vehicle in error or the Prolaser III device used by the police officers was not working accurately.
During the trial at Stirling Sheriff and Justice of the Peace Court our specialist Road Traffic Lawyer, Mr Sheridan, was able to demonstrate that the Prolaser III device used was not tested in accordance with the device’s testing guidelines and that the local order, which the Procurator Fiscal claimed enforced the speed limit, was no longer in force.
Following robust legal submissions and reference to appropriate caselaw our road traffic lawyer persuaded the court that there was insufficient evidence to consider convicting Mr M of speeding and he was found not guilty.
Although the Prolaser III and other speed detection devices can be very accurate, they are not infallible. This is a great example as to why you should speak to our specialist road traffic lawyer if you feel you have been wrongly charged with speeding.
Oban Sheriff & Justice of the Peace Court-
Our client, Mr E, was charged with speeding at 95 mph in a 60 mph zone just outside Oban.
Whilst our client never disputed speeding, he disputed that he was traveling any higher than approx. 85 mph. Our client had increased his speed momentarily to overtake a slower moving vehicle at one of few points on the road where it was safe to do so before bringing his speed within the speed limit again. He was conscious of his speed whilst carrying out this manoeuvre and so intended in challenging the allegation at trial.
Prior to the trial starting our specialist road traffic lawyer, Mr Sheridan, discussed the case in detail with the Procurator Fiscal depute and following negotiations was successful in persuading the Procurator Fiscal to reduce the speed in the charge to 85 mph.
On that basis Mr E pled guilty and following a comprehensive and bespoke plea in mitigation by our road traffic lawyer he received 4 penalty points and a fine.
Had our client simply pled guilty to the higher speed on the basis that he had been speeding despite disputing the speed libelled he could have lost his driving licence or at least received higher penalty points. This is a good example of what we can do for drivers who stick to their principles when they feel the allegation against them does not reflect reality.