Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026Â Â /Â The Time Best Law Firms 2026Â /Â 40+ Years of Expert Legal Practice in London
Legal 500 Leading Firm 2026Â Â /Â The Time Best Law Firms 2026Â /Â 40+ Years of Expert Legal Practice in London
Our client, a professional bus driver, faced charges of driving without due care and attention, using a mobile phone while driving, and failing to stop for the police. A conviction would have had serious consequences for his career, as his livelihood depended on maintaining his driving licence within the applicable penalty point threshold.
The prosecution’s case appeared particularly strong. Body-worn camera footage showed our client colliding with a police vehicle and failing to stop when instructed. On the face of the evidence, the prospects of conviction on all three charges were significant, placing his employment and future career at considerable risk.
Recognising the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, our team acted swiftly on the day of the hearing to protect the client’s career. We negotiated with the Crown Prosecution Service, offering guilty pleas to the mobile phone and careless driving charges in exchange for the complete drop of the failure to stop offence. The prosecution agreed, and we presented the case to the District Judge, highlighting the severe impact a disqualification or high point penalty would have on our client’s job. The district judge took his employment into account, endorsing his licence with just 6 penalty points alongside a heavily reduced financial penalty. This exceptional result kept our client within the legal limits to continue working as a bus driver, saving his career.
Our client appeared before the court facing two motoring charges: one for speeding and another for failing to provide driver information (a Section 172 offence). The position was that a dual conviction would have carried cumulative penalty points, hefty financial penalties, and a significantly damaged driving record.
Following a detailed pre-hearing conference to assess the evidence and the legal parameters of his instructions, our team negotiated with the Crown Prosecution Service. We successfully reached an agreement where our client entered a guilty plea to the speeding offence, and in return, the prosecution offered no evidence regarding the more serious Section 172 charge, dropping it entirely. By presenting careful mitigation for the speeding matter, we secured a highly favourable outcome; his licence was endorsed with just 3 penalty points alongside a managed financial penalty.
Our client found himself facing the court’s highest sentencing bracket after being caught driving 65 mph in a 30 mph zone. The position was that given the extreme speed – more than double the legal limit – he faced an immediate risk of a high disqualification period, which would completely disrupt his livelihood and other personal circumstances such as being the emergency carer for his elderly parents.
The firm conducted a thorough review of the case and prepared a detailed mitigation strategy centred around the client’s exceptional background. We presented evidence of his prompt guilty plea, deep remorse, and an entirely clean driving record spanning 41 years with no prior offences. Furthermore, we highlighted his crucial role as the only local family member available to assist his vulnerable parents in medical emergencies.
While the Magistrates ultimately used their discretion to impose a 40-day disqualification, this was an exceptionally positive outcome. For a speed of 65 mph in a 30 mph zone, the official sentencing guidelines state that when a driver is “grossly in excess” of the limit, the court should consider a disqualification exceeding 56 days. By presenting a compelling case for mitigation, our dedicated representation successfully restricted the ban to just 40 days, beating the standard guideline minimum, and ensuring he could return to the road in just a matter of weeks.
Our client, a licensed London black cab driver of 12 years, was facing a charge of failing to provide driver information (Section 172). The position was that he already had 6 points on his licence, and a conviction would put his livelihood, his family’s income, and his extensive community caretaking responsibilities at immediate risk.
The initial conviction had been imposed in his absence, but the firm successfully had the matter re-opened. The client maintained that he never received the original Notice of Intended Prosecution because his family home was undergoing major renovations during the relevant period, forcing them to temporarily relocate while mail was disrupted. We prepared a strong defence brief well in advance, backed by invoice evidence of the building works.
At trial, after hearing the client’s evidence and our legal submissions, the Magistrates returned a Not Guilty verdict. This exceptional result ensures a dedicated professional and commended TFL driver can keep his licence clean and stay on the road.
Our client, a professional HGV driver, appeared at court for a trial involving three separate offences: careless driving, failing to stop, and failing to report an accident. While manoeuvring a 26-tonne lorry, he had accidentally collided with a parked car. Although he followed company policy by logging the incident and ensuring the owner’s insurance was settled within weeks, he still faced prosecution. As a commercial driver whose livelihood relied entirely on his licence, a conviction on all three counts risked a severe “totting-up” driving ban.
The position was that the client accepted his driving on that day fell below the standard, but he firmly contested the charges of failing to stop and report. Our team negotiated with the Crown Prosecution Service, presenting evidence of the prompt insurance pay out and the client’s compliance with his company’s accident policy. We successfully convinced the prosecution to drop the contested charges entirely. Our client entered a guilty plea to careless driving alone, and no evidence was offered on the remaining failure to stop and report counts.
Following our mitigation highlighting his previously clean driving record and his personal responsibilities as the registered driver for his disabled mother-in-law, the Magistrates gave him maximum credit. Instead of a ban, his licence was endorsed with just 3 penalty points alongside a managed financial penalty, keeping a dedicated professional on the road.
Our client appeared at Court for trial facing two motoring allegations: driving without due care and attention, and driving whilst not in proper control of a vehicle. The prosecution alleged that he had been filtering through traffic while riding a moped with a mobile phone wedged inside his helmet, supposedly obstructing his vision. The position was that his work strictly required him to drive, making a conviction a direct problem to his employment. Rather than allowing the case to proceed unnecessarily, our defence team actively targeted the reliability of the prosecution’s case during the trial. Through focused cross-examination of the sole police witness, we established that the officer’s observations were compromised while driving, that there was zero evidence of any poor driving or lane-swerving, and that the body-worn video failed to capture the alleged offence.
Following the close of the prosecution’s evidence, we made a “no case to answer” submission to the Magistrates, arguing that the evidence was too weak and speculative to support a conviction. The Bench agreed, upholding our submission and dismissing both charges entirely before the defence even needed to present its case. Our client was fully acquitted, and we successfully applied for a Defence Costs Order. The client received just over 50% of his legal fees back from central funds. This not only protected his driving license and career but also significantly eased his financial burden.
Our client had received a totting up ban. The position is that this ban was imposed unfairly and without proper consideration to his circumstances which were exceptional.
The firm prepared a strong appeal argument, and then made an application to the Crown Court to have the ban temporarily lifted whilst the client awaited his appeal date. This not only ensured that the client does not receive a disqualification for any longer than would be imposed following the appeal, but also means that the client, who has disabilities, is able to drive in the interim without the financial and physical pressures he faced without a licence.
The client had received several fine notices for parking at a hospital. Whilst he had a disabled badge, the parking lot required owners to key in their badge number and produce a ticket. Had the client complied with this direction, the ticket fee would have been £0. The client later travelled abroad, and was stuck here due to an injury. Upon return he had fines totalling £170 and threats to take him to Court.
We argued that the fines amounted to an unfair contract and that the company had not properly considered his mitigating circumstances which were reasonable. It was also submitted that the terms of the car park were unfair for drivers with disabled badges, who would not reasonably believe they needed to display a ticket for a no fee space. As a result, no action has been taken against the individual.
