Alan Hutton Beats Speeding Rap

Technorati Profile
Many of you may have seen the recent news item about Alan Hutton. Our client had the misfortune to be stopped by two road traffic police officers as he left Glasgow one sunny afternoon in November last year.
Mr Hutton's case was widely reported as if there had been a simple admin error however winning Mr Hutton's case like many others took a great deal of research, commitment and powers of persuasion to bring to a successful conclusion.
We had spotted at least 4 significant deficiencies in the Crown case. When it came to court ex Sheriff Mr Robert McCallum was prosecuting.He is a very experienced and very able Procurator Depute. He realised immediately that the Crown had at least two difficulties with the case and he explained to me that he would move the court for an adjournment. The case had been adjourned on a previous occasion ostensibly because a police witness had failed to attend. I had opposed this as I felt the real reason, was that the Crown knew that they had failed in some of the basic preparations in the case and had decided to try to plug the holes in their case. A few weeks later it looked like my suspicions had been borne out when we received calibration certificates for the police equipment. It was clear from the documents served that they had been prepared weeks AFTER the original trial diet!
This meant we would have to re visit the case preparation and we began with the video evidence. Usually a formality as it shows the police chase however in this case it may have proved to be very important as we soon realised that the Crown had another problem. The charge was speeding in a 50mph zone however we could see from the video that some of the speed detection was into a 60mph zone. The way in which the charge was libeled would make this a very important discovery. Yet again showing that you can leave no stone unturned when it comes to preparing a case for trial.
I don't intend explaining all the other areas of concern simply because our fellow solicitors and competitors read this blog and I think that it is time they did their own homework.
I was asked after the case if this "muck up" in case preparation was all the fault of the Procurator Fiscal and had to say no. The fact is that the PF in court probably only received the case papers an hour or so before the trial was due to start. He relied upon the systems set up in the Procurator Fiscal's office to ensure the case was fully prepared however when that office is dealing with probably the biggest workload of ANY court in Europe it is hardly surprising that a mere speeding charge fails to get all the attention that it requires. I reckon to prepare one of these cases properly takes at least 10hours. I can do this because I have clients like Mr Hutton who are willing to pay me to do all that I can to win. The PF's office is equipped with terrific legal resources such a online legal databases, case management software and scanning and document processing technology but these resources can deliver a lot more for small businesses like my own.We have invested heavily in this area an in fact we have the same, if not better IT solutions at work in our office. We can make the time to check legal databases, cross reference documents and statutes and check video evidence. However can the public purse ever afford to throw that level of resources at the prosecution of a minor crime? If the answer is no, then alternatives should be considered i.e. Should penalty points ALWAYS be imposed for speeding or should it be like in Holland and some other countries where speeding is dealt with by a fixed monetary penalty? Should cases always come before a criminal court or could some cases be dealt with by a civil remedy? (Then no criminal record?) There are a lot of questions, moral,political and legal all involved in the "Speeding in Scotland" debate.

Didn't Mean To Kill..... It Was A Car Accident!

Car Crash Compilation - More videos are here

From 18 August 2008 drivers who cause death by careless driving or by driving while unlicensed or disqualified may go to prison. In Scotland you can expect to be tried on indictment before a Sheriff and Jury and get up to 5 years inside!


This is for something you had no intention of doing. You may have even tried very hard not to do it! Lets not get confused here. If you kill someone because of Dangerous Driving you can already go to jail. The distinction is that if it was a genuine error, a moment of inattention then you can now go to jail for a long time!

In the past Scottish courts have been unable to take the consequences of careless driving into account in their sentencing- For one obvious reason. "The driver didn't mean it and his driving did not fall far below what a reasonably competent driver would have done in the same circumstances" I have been practising law in the courts of Scotland for 24 years and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a poor piece of legislation drafted by those who are more concerned with placating the tabloid press than justice.

How can it be just to jail a person for being involved in an accident caused by poor driving. We are none of us perfect and can all from time to time experience a lapse in concentration or make a momentary error in judging a speed or a distance. Do we need to be crucified because another family has been devastated by our error?

"Killer driver jailed" may be a good headline but does it make sense where for instance we learn that the careless driving amounted to a driver who swerved to avoid a collapsed drain cover causing his car to roll over and crash into another vehicle causing death? There but for the grace of God go you or I. Believe me when I tell you that the stress of knowing that you are facing conviction and jail for accident could drive a decent law abiding motorist to suicide.

The 'Don't drive distracted' announcement from Justice Secretary Jack Straw is supposed to highlight a range of new careless driving laws but seems to refer to those people who choose to drive while putting on their makeup, host a conference call on their mobile or chomp down their Big Mac and fries as they scald their legs with coffee and drive to work. THAT IS DANGEROUS DRIVING and we have a law that protects us all. If you cause a death whilst doing so I have no doubt any reasonably minded jury would find you guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and off to jail you could go. We do not need a new law extending "careless driving". If the consequence of your careless driving is a death the court say it must be taken into account does this therefore mean that if the consequences are not death but injury that must also now be taken into consideration. I would suggest that the answer is now, yes. In Scotland we will have to see what the High Court makes of our new laws and how to interpret same.

Changing the law in relation to those idiots who cause death whilst deliberately driving without insurance or a licence has been a long time coming but again it does open the general public to a level of judicial jeopardy that they have never been in before. If you haven't checked your insurance company direct debits I suggest you do so today! (If you have any questions about this blog piece you may want to Ask A Lawyer

Vigilante Villagers Zap Motorists In Staffordshire

I recently read in the Scotsman newspaper that a group of vigilantes hand been handed speed detection devices and set loose on the drivers who have the misfortune to drive through their villages. What next - Handcuffs and police cells built in the corner of the kitchen?
This mad scheme just adds fuel to the already blazing debate about the use of speed cameras in this country and if any Chief Constable thinks that it is the way to develop a sense of community and security in his region he needs his head examined.
We do not live in the Wild West nor should we treat motorists like Billy the Kid with guns pointing at him/her from behind lace curtains.
This scheme is a recipe for disaster with people settling scores with their neighbours from hell! Or maybe they will just pick on a particular type of motorist like the BMW owners!
These villagers do not know what they are letting themselves in for if they expect to be treated with respect and grace when they take to the streets armed with their weapons of mass prosecution. I can see them now, standing at the side of the road pointing their laser guns at the oncoming traffic with that Dirty Harry look on their face that says "I know what your thinking punk, now,make my day"
I am certain that motorists will fight any prosecution based on the evidence of some doddering old age pensioner who zapped them with a speed gun. I would like to think that if this insane scheme makes its way to Scotland the police forces here will kick it into touch however if they don't they can rely upon me challenge every single ticket that comes across my desk!
Meanwhile if anyone wants FREE legal advice about where they stand if they have been hit with a vigilanted penalty or any other kind they can log on to the Ask a Lawyer page of our site.

Mike Graham of Talk Radio -Speed Cameras

Last night I caught the last few minutes of the Mike Graham late night show on Talksport radio.
Mike Graham hosted a really good phone in relating to speed cameras and their use and impact in the UK.
The clear majority of those getting through thought that speed cameras were really hitting the wrong people. This is something that I have been banging on about for years. Do we want a society where a large section is criminalised (Criminal record) just because they drift through a GATSO speed trap or drive past the dreaded "Talivan" on their way home from a long stressful day? Of course not! If I hadn't been so bushed from a day beating my gums in front of a dim witted Sheriff then I would have phoned in myself.
This is crazy, we end up having decent working people getting hammered with points, insurance hikes and even more importantly a criminal record- that they have to declare on all their disclosure forms. I had one distressed client call me (On our FREE helpline) recently to clarify whether she would have to disclose that she had a criminal record as she had just been convicted of 41mph in a 30mph zone. The answer was YES! Her reaction was genuine distress and upset together with the resolution that she would no longer help out at her kids school because she couldn't bare to fill in the disclosure form and admit that she now had a criminal record. No matter how much it was explained that "No one really regarded this as a criminal record, in the real world. She was resolute that she would try and keep her, "little secret" hidden!)
Here we have a decent member of our society, doing her bit to make her local school a better place for all the kids and now they are deprived because of a stupid blunderbuss approach to the problem of speeding. She mentioned that she was from Holland were this type of offence is dealt with by a simple police fine with no penalty points and re course to the penalty points system. I had heard of this from no other than the Director of the GATSO factory when I had taken my staff over for a factory visit last year!He had pointed out that -per head of population the Dutch have more speeding tickets issued to them than the Scots but that it wasn't regarded as a big deal because you did not get points on your licence. unless the speed was grossly excessive and there was no subsequent hit on your insurance premiums. Politically therefore there was less pressure to ban or reduce the use of cameras in his country. The stats that they produced showed clearly that the use of cameras showed a mark reduction in accidents after their installation. (I didn't expect him to show me stats that show speed cameras are a waste of money) He told us that the average GATSO costs around £45,000 to install. I couldn't help but wonder if a metal box with a flash unit would have had the same effect on the statistics for accidents and perhaps the tens of thousands could be used to improve the road!
As a specialist solicitor who is dependent upon the continued prosecution of drivers it can seem strange to call for a reduction in the use of cameras but I think that it's time to reduce the proliferation of this "one solution to fix all" and time to re think the problem. The statistics also show that cameras are now having a reduced impact-Otherwise we would have NO accidents as there are now so many of the bloody things all over the place!

Road Traffic Lawyer Claims SPECS Speed Cameras Cause Accidents

Road traffic lawyer Graham Walker spoke out today about the latest controversy over the SPECS average speed camera detection system.

He claimed that since people are becoming aware that they can avoid speed detection prosecution by “lane hopping” the chances are that accidents will be increased.

He said “Ironically whilst taking my legal staff on a trip to the GATSO factory in the Netherlands we witnessed a road accident on the M77 heading for Prestwick airport. We all speculated as to whether a driver had been trying to avoid speed detection by changing lane. “

Unlike the Gatso cameras which records a car as it passes, these cameras measure the average speed of a driver between two fixed points. As the driver passes one set of cameras he/she is aware that his/her speed is being recorded. If they choose not to slow down the speed will be detected by the time they cross the next camera position further along the road and they will receive a fixed penalty in the post. The idea is to catch the speeder who slams on his brakes before a camera then speeds off as soon as he is past it.

However Home Office guideline governing the use of the camera equipment, are only valid if a driver is recorded in the same lane at the start and finish of each section by a linked pair of cameras.

I am certain that the camera's manufacturers - Speed Check Services (SCS) - can confirm that drivers could escape prosecution by lane-hopping but would of course do all they can to discourage same. Clearly the Home Office need to re invest in testing

Graham Walker said “My understanding is that these camera systems cost around £180,000 to £800,000 a time to install. You have to seriously consider if that money could be better spent on safety as opposed to speed cameras ie Could young drivers be subsidised in receiving Advanced Pass Plus qualifications or could repeat offenders receive training in Speed Awareness?