GLASGOW OFFICE: 0141 550 1074 CALL NOW
DUMFRIES OFFICE: 01387 252 777 CALL NOW

Speeding Trial Glasgow Found Not Guilty Without Asking A Question

Kept Licence
Glasgow Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court

Our client was on 9 penalty points when he was accused of speeding and desperately required to keep his driving licence. We were instructed and the case proceeded to trial. By the close of the Crown case, we had not asked a single question of any of the witnesses. We made a submission that there was 'no case to answer' based on a lack of evidence. The Court upheld our submission and acquitted our client of the speeding charge. This case is the perfect example of how to properly conduct a speeding trial. The onus is on the Crown to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The skill in successfully defending speeding cases is knowing when to cross-examine and when to sit tight and keep schtum. The knowledge comes through years of experience coupled with skilled advocacy. This case was notable for the fact that when the case recalled after the lunch break that the Procurator Fiscal Depute who was dealing with the case had written the word: "Acquitted" in her file prior to our legal submissions being made (due to the legal authorities we had provided to her prior to the recess).

This case called before Glasgow JP Court on 29th November 2017 and was one of three cases successfully dealt with by our Mr Simpson on that day.

 Kept Licence!

Published: 30/11/2017

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 principal....