TagFacts

Michael Lyon has represented high profile celebrities to fellow Solicitors and has a vast amount of knowledge on technical aspects relating to all types road traffic cases, including more specialised areas such as tachograph offences.


The Firm is able to provide legal services, tailored to your needs, at extremely competitive rates. We appreciate there can be reluctance to seek the services of a Solicitor in cases where the layman might think a conviction is inevitable. However you must remember that you are presumed innocent of whatever crime has been alleged until it is proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt.

Speeding, Speeding Offences, Dangerous Driving, Specialist Motorist Lawyer, Speeding Charge
A number of new offences were created by the new Act, for example causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by driving whilst uninsured, unlicensed or disqualified. These will be appropriately utilised by the Crown when drafting summary complaints or indictments however what about the new sentencing options?

I can only really comment upon my own experiences, however there may continue to be a number of provisions within the road traffic framework that continue to be effectively ignored by Scottish Courts and, I have to say, by those who practice within them.

Firstly, those accused of road traffic offences within Scotland should be aware of the provisions of Section 37(1A) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1988. These relate to what is known as a short term disqualification, i.e. a driving ban of 56 days or less.

In my experience, notwithstanding the fact it has been around for some 17 years, it seems to gain very little exposure in our criminal Courts. Its relevance can be huge in particular cases as it can result in a greatly reduced ban for offenders who may be subject to the totting-up provisions therefore facing a typical disqualification period of six months. It is rarely made clear that the Court is always entitled to give consideration to a short term ban as an alternative to a six month disqualification under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The relevance of this provision has become even greater with the introduction of Justice of the Peace Courts. Historically, these limited sentencing powers attached to cases prosecuted in these Courts although they are now armed with increased sentencing powers and, more importantly, now can competently disqualify drivers on a discretionary basis. This means that if you are due to appear in the District Court on a charge of speeding and your pal from the pub has told you the Court is unable to disqualify you, then think again!

The upside of the increased powers is that these Courts can now impose a short term disqualification and a 28 day ban may be a slightly easier pill to swallow than a six month totting-up disqualification.

The educational theme within the road traffic legislation continues with the introduction of more Courses for Offenders by extending the provisions to include those charged with careless driving, speeding and failing to comply with traffic signals. It is anticipated that these Courses will be rolled out for a further array of offences in the future.

The provisions link up to the introduction of the Drink Driving Rehabilitation Course which was introduced back in December 1999. This has not, in my view, been a well received provision. I have regularly appeared in the criminal Courts and argued that an offender be placed on the Course in order to educate and, obviously, mitigate the period of disqualification. It has been suggested that the provision only exists to reduce the length of ban although this is not the case.

There is a presumption in favour of being placed on the appropriate Course, subject to the offender’s consent. The Courts have, historically, struggled with this concept and see it as a cheap way to reduce the period of disqualification by 25%. The statistics confirm that the scheme continues to be effective as measured by the lower drink-drive reconviction rates of course attendees.

The legislative provisions exist for a reason and they are effectively worthless if they are not utilised by the Scottish Courts. It is clear that those accused of Road Traffic offences within Scotland should instruct a Solicitor with a full working knowledge of the legislation to ensure that all the options are properly considered and presented.

Michael Lyon Solicitors exclusively practices road traffic law and defends all types of motoring offences throughout Scotland. All Solicitors within the Firm have an expert knowledge of road traffic law in Scotland with a particular focus drawn on speeding, dangerous driving and drink driving allegations in Scotland.

Specialist legal representation provided in all Courts for motoring offences including Glasgow, Paisley, Dumfries, Perth, Aberdeen, Invernesss and Kilmarnock.

W: http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com
E: ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com
T: 0141-550-1074
M: 07903-818-719 (Urgent cases only)

Michael Lyon, an expert motoring lawyer in Scotland, provides some tips on how to recognise a true specialist road traffic lawyer.

In an age when criminal solicitors in Scotland are feeling the pinch with legal aid cuts and increased diversion away from formal Court proceedings, many Firms are turning towards road traffic law as a potential source of revenue in these difficult times. These are some key tips, in my view, to consider when you are talking to a purported specialist road traffic lawyer:

The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers has expanded its membership with the addition of two of Scotland’s leading motoring law practices.
Michael Lyon Solicitors have joined the association after recognising the need to promote the benefits of using specialist road traffic law firms to the motoring public. Many cases in the UK have demonstrated that specialists can often provide a more effective defence than those solicitors with less traffic law knowledge. AMOL is a voluntary, non-profit organisation whose members must all have extensive knowledge and experience in defending motoring cases.
Motoring law is an extremely complex area of criminal law involving technical defences that only an expert can successfully understand and argue before a court. Whilst many general criminal lawyers are capable of dealing with a straight forward factual motoring defence, the vast majority do not have the expertise to employ the tactics and knowledge that AMOL accredited experts have gained through years of experience.
Commenting on their reasons for joining AMOL, Mr Lyon pointed out “pressure on Legal Aid funding is causing many general practices in Scotland to seek work in areas which may not have been part of their previous areas of expertise. We are looking to clearly identify ourselves as motoring specialists and believe AMOL membership makes this statement loud and clear.”
Founding Chief Executive and President of AMOL, Jeanette Miller explains that “having members in Scotland is crucial to AMOL’s development as the courts have very different rules to England and Wales, so English lawyers have no jurisdiction.”
AMOL membership is open to all criminal solicitors who can demonstrate their knowledge and track record in the area of traffic law and who are willing to adhere to the AMOL code of conduct. Those interested in applying should contact Richard Silver, Membership Secretary on 08000 85 27 84 or via the application form which is available for download via the AMOL website www.amol.uk.com.
Company Details:
Michael Lyon Solicitors Ltd
232 Bath Street
Glasgow
G2 4JR
www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com
ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com
0141-550-1074 (24 hours)

AMOL, the Association of Motoring Offence Lawyers, is a non-profit organization that seeks to protect the public from poor representation by ensuring they have access to solicitors with true expertise in the area of motoring law. Founded in May 2007 its members only include expert solicitors who specialise in defending those prosecuted for motoring offences.

Michael Lyon, a Scottish Solicitor specialising in road traffic law, discusses whether it is time to rethink the archaic stopping distances referred to in the Highway Code.

The Highway Code is a useful tool for driver seeking guidance on various rules and regulations that apply on our roads. In my time of defending road traffic cases throughout Scotland it is repeatedly churned out by traffic police in support of criminal charges. But how much relevance does it have in the modern era?

Firstly, the thinking time involved is entirely subjective. A trained fighter pilot would be presumed to have sharper reaction times however the Courts do not tend to place too much weight on the subjective nature of reaction times. I have represented trained racing drivers with presumably razor-sharp reactions although when reliance is placed on this the Courts tend to take the view that a trained driver should be more aware of the risks involved in travelling at excessive speeds.

On a linked point, it can be frustrating when a police officer gives evidence that he is fully trained in the operation of the Visual Average Speed And Recorder (VASCAR) and the Courts simply accept that the officer’s reaction times are the same as they were over a decade prior to the speed check. Life is such that we all deteriorate over time and the presumption must be that reaction times are affected simply by the aging process. This is relevant in such cases because the device simply works by virtue of a serious of toggle switches and the timings are crucial to ensuring an accurate speed is recorded.

The actual braking distances involved in the above diagram are a relic from the 1960s and relate to tests undertaken using a Ford Anglia. The world is now a very different place and cars have sophisticated braking systems that mean the “typical braking distances” referred to in the Highway Code are defunct. Specific information about vehicles involved in road traffic offences should be given more weight by the Courts as each case should turn on its own facts. Without any scientific testing it seems obvious that the suggested braking distance at 70mph is 75 metres or 24 car lengths is farcical.

The relevance of all of this is huge. I regularly defend clients charged under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, namely dangerous driving. Now this is a very serious charge carrying a mandatory minimum period of disqualification of 12 months with a compulsory order to resit. Typically the police statements indicate the following about why they consider the manner of driving to be dangerous:

(a) possibility of debris on the roads which contains many forms the most common being the remains of large goods vehicles after sustaining a blow out and the police regularly receive reports from motorists reporting the remains of tyres or other types of debris;
(b) possibility of stray animals on the roadway, for example cattle and livestock;
(c) possibility of slow moving vehicles;
(d) possibility of stationary vehicles on the roadway due to traffic;

Furthermore there is always a reference to the typical stopping distance. For example, at speeds of 80mph, the typical stopping distance would be noted as 400 feet. This rather “over eggs the pudding” and unfortunately motorists charged with road traffic offences in Scotland face prosecutions based on this estimate.

As I say, I consider the actual vehicle involved in the alleged offence as extremely relevant from an evidential perspective. A well maintained modern vehicle with ABS or a similar system will be able to come to a halt in perhaps a third of the “typical stopping distances”. This is crucial and the Courts should attach more weight to the specifics of each vehicle in the same way as it would be considered an aggravating factor if the vehicle was in blatant breach of Construction and Use Regulations.
Michael Lyon is a specialist motoring lawyer based in Glasgow. The Firm undertakes the defence of all types of Road Traffic Cases in Scotland. Expert representation provided in all Courts including Glasgow, Perth, Dumfries, Selkirk, Stonehaven, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock and Paisley.

W: http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com

E: ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com

T: 0141-550-1074

M: 07903-818-719 (Urgent cases only)

Prosecutions under s.5(1)(a) and (b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are complicated and it would be impossible to detail all the possible angles and defences that may require to be investigated. This article will attempt to highlight some of the more common issues that should be addressed if you are facing a charge of drink driving in Scotland.

Under s.5(1)(a) it is an offence if a person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit. The “prescribed limit” is defined by s.11(2) as 35ug of alcohol in 100ml of breath, 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood or 107mg of alcohol in 100ml of urine.

The first issue I would like to point out is that the Crown will not initiate proceedings on the basis of breath-alcohol readings of less than 40ug. Although technically the police are entitled to proceed, the Crown are personally prosecuting the case by virtue of an agreement between the Crown Agent and the Law Society of Scotland. Rather unfairly in my view, there is no similar agreement for specimens of blood or urine. So if you are charged with drink driving in Scotland with a blood-alcohol reading of 81mg, then you better get some good advice from a road traffic expert because the Crown, in all probability, be will initiate proceedings.

The Intoximeter EC/IR is the main device used in Scots law for the analysis of breath samples. It has full type approval under section 7(1)(a) and is recognised as such as a matter of judicial knowledge. It very rarely, however, produces identical readings which will be of a concern to the person accused of drink driving.

Type approval dictates that if the variation between the two samples of breath vary in excess of 15% then the readings are inadmissible and some other procedure will presumably be invoked. Furthermore if an accused’s reading is less than 50ug/100ml or less then s.8(2)ug then the police will require to explain that the person may claim that specimen should be replaced by either blood or urine. This provision takes into account the variations that can be produced by the Intoximeter EC/IR and again will no give the public a great deal of confidence in the prosecution of drink driving cases in Scotland.

My advice is that an alternative sample should always be provided. There are a number of technical reasons for this although, to put it very simply, an accused person has nothing to lose at this stage by doing so. Interestingly, it has been suggested to me by clients I have defended that the police have tried to dissuade them from the alternative sample route. Please be aware that where improper pressure is exerted on an accused not to exercise his option to provide a specimen for laboratory analysis then this will result in an acquittal. Again the services of an expert motoring lawyer are essential in these circumstances.

I would also advise that the independent analysis of samples is undertaken. There are strict time limits that apply due to the degradation principle and, again, advice should be sought at the earliest opportunity. Clearly a degree of expense will be incurred by instructing an independent analysis although it could be the best money you have ever spent.

It is also essential to look at the constituent elements of the charge: namely the concepts of driving/in charge and public place/road. There is a vast amount of legal authority on these subjects and these lines of defence should be investigated.

There is also the defence of “post-incident” drinking. This is loosely referred to as the “hip-flask” defence and means that the alcohol that has lead the prescribed limit to be exceeded was consumed after the act of driving. This is a statutory defence and will require to be properly stated in Court with a toxicology report detailing an expert’s view on the expected alcohol reading at the time of driving. These cases can be complicated and detailed instruction from the client is essential.
These are the very basics and I hope I have given at least a starting point to those who are facing charges of drink driving in Scotland. Expert advice should be sought on this highly technical and specialised area of law. Even in cases where you may think there is no hope, there can be unexpected technical defences and it is imperative that the case is properly examined to ensure a plea of guilty is not tendered to a charge that will never prove.
Michael Lyon is a specialist motoring lawyer based in Glasgow. The Firm undertakes the defence of all types of Road Traffic Cases in Scotland. Expert representation provided in all Courts including Glasgow, Perth, Dumfries, Selkirk, Stonehaven, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock and Paisley.

W: http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com

E: ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com

T: 0141-550-1074

M: 07903-818-719 (Urgent cases only)

In Scots Law, there are two fundamental facts the Crown require to establish: that a crime has been committed and the identity of the alleged perpetrator. The standard of proof in a criminal trial in Scotland is “beyond reasonable doubt” and accordingly the Crown case requires to meet a high and exacting standard if an acquittal is to be secured.

You may be familiar with the provisions of s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 which are ostensibly framed to enable the Crown to identify who was driving the vehicle at the particular time the alleged offence occurred by imposing certain duties on the registered keeper. The 172 requirement or Notice of Intended Prosecution has been the subject of much case law and continues to be a source of interesting legal debate. It is impossible to consider every possible scenario and would suggest that expert guidance should be sought if you have been made subject to such a request. You should always bear in mind that if there is a doubt about who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time then this should be raised with the Camera Partnership who may be able to assist you by the supply of photographic evidence. Do not, under any circumstances, run the risk of making a false admission.

I have defended thousands of road traffic cases in Scotland and I still continue to be amazed at the deficiencies in the Prosecution case that continue to be exposed. When I first started defending road traffic cases, the most common device in usage was the VASCAR (Visual Average Speed Computer and Recorder). It is probably the most basic and easy to understand speed measurement device which, through a programmed computer, measures the speed of the vehicle by the time it took to travel that distance. I remember a case when I decided, more as an intellectual exercise than anything, to drive down to the locus myself and measure the distance between the two fixed points used in the speed check. To my amazement, the distance was out by over a third and therefore the speed measurement was entirely unreliable.

Since then I have learnt that it pays to meticulously check every aspect of the Crown case. From visibility issues to calibration, the VASCAR device continues to be successfully challenged which is obviously great for the clients who get the benefit of the investigative work, although not so good for the huge number of accused persons who simply plead guilty at the first calling and take the inevitable punishment.

A routine journey in a motor vehicle is now peppered with fixed roadside cameras (the GATSO), long-range units on overbridges (the Lti 20-20 Speedscope) in addition to mobile units patrolling the roads. Things could be worse however: during a visit to the GATSO factory in Amsterdam I was shown a prototype GATSO camera that was housed within a wheelie bin! Don’t worry, though, I have it on extremely good authority that this unit will not be making an appearance in the UK.

Nevertheless, the point remains that high mileage drivers are exposed to increased surveillance on the roads and the 12 point latitude we are graced with can be eaten away on a single journey. As a general rule, if a driver is convicted at 30mph over the speed limit that a period of disqualification looms large. The Crown have also started using the provisions of s.2 Road Traffic Act 1988 to prosecute higher speeds which will result in a minimum 12 month ban and an order to resit the test of competency. Even more worryingly, the Crown can move the Court to forfeit the vehicle used in the commission of the offence. Imagine you had just treated yourself to a brand new 911!

My best advice to drivers who have concerns about speeding is very simple: don’t speed. Human beings, by their very nature, do make mistakes and I can only emphasise the importance of seeking specialist advice from a recognised expert in the field.

When I was a student I received a ticket and three points for travelling at 42mph in a 30mph limit. Knowing what I know now, I would not be so keen to accept the fixed penalty if the same were to happen again.

We all know that the best way to beat speed cameras and avoid paying speeding tickets is to not speed in the first place! However, many ordinary people get speeding tickets, maybe they were in a hurry, maybe they just didn't notice what the speed limit was, or maybe they lent their vehicle to someone else. Whatever the reason, thousands of motorists receive a hefty summons through the post everyday, and face the possibility of having their driving licence’s revoked.

While there are countless well established urban myths with regards dodging the law or taking advantage of supposed loop-holes, many of these will simply add an extra charge to the original offence, for example, it has been suggested that applying cling film or clear nail varnish to your registration plate will refract the flash from a speed camera. Of course, with today’s technology this is completely false, not to mention illegal.

There can often be a reluctance to seek the services of a Solicitor in cases where the layman might think a conviction is inevitable. However it is important to remember that you are presumed innocent of whatever crime has been alleged until it is proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt. One of Scotland’s leading road traffic law firms, Michael Lyon Solicitors is a widely recognized expert in the field of road traffic law that has defended in excess of one thousand road traffic cases in Scotland ranging from drink driving offences to speeding allegations.

Michael says: “Road traffic cases are complex and accordingly the proper and effective presentation of the Defence case is crucial. Of course, there are some “tricks of the trade” or “loopholes” and, yes, they do work sometimes. However a good lawyer should be able to think outside the box. The successful defence of a road traffic case can involve technical procedural points, over and above the usual challenges to the evidence that the Crown should really be able to anticipate.”





Fundamentally road traffic laws are there to make the roads safer for all motorists, however, this doesn’t often sit well for a driver penalised for driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit, but Michael says: “My best advice to drivers who have concerns about speeding is very simple, don’t speed. However, human beings, by their very nature, do make mistakes and I can only emphasise the importance of seeking specialist advice from a recognised expert in the field.

For expert legal advice and representation visit www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com

Editor’s Note: The Road Traffic Lawyer is represented by online advertising consultancy, Top Position. Please direct all press queries to Billy Howe. Email: billy@topposition.co.uk or call: 0800