Speeding In Oban

Kept Licence
Oban Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court

Our client in this case was recommended by another law firm to instruct us to defend his speeding case, and it is a good thing that he followed their advice.  He was charged at Oban Justice of the Peace Court with travelling at 84mph in a 60 mph limit in contravention of the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984, sections 88 and 89. 

Additionally, he had already accrued 9 penalty points and so the risk to his driving licence was twofold: either a ban for a minimum period of 6 months under the ‘totting-up’ provisions (as contained within section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988), or the Court exercising its power of discretionary disqualification due to the excess of speed.  To compound matters, there was the small fact that he happened to live over 500 miles from the court!

Whilst we were able to minimise the occasions on which our client was required to attend court, he was still obliged to be present for trial.  Prior procedure had included a motion by the Crown to adjourn due to witness issues, and at the second trial diet other business being dealt with by the court meant that the cases had to again be postponed.

We took advantage at this stage of our good relationship with the prosecutor at Oban, and detailed in correspondence the various reasons why it was no longer in the public interest for him to continue with this case.  He was in agreement, and ended proceedings against our client by deserting the complaint. 

Published: 06/03/2020

Need help with a similar case?

Contact Us

See also

Sheriff Rejects Police Evidence In Speeding Charge

Our client was accused of speeding at 101mph on the M74. Following a speeding trial the Sheriff decided that the police officers did not give credible or reliable evidence and found our client not guilty of the charge. Despite stating that he was very experienced, one road traffic officer claimed that he could not tell the Court the difference between a saloon and an estate car. This was a great result. There was no risk to our client's licence and was defended solely on a point of principle....