The offence of speeding is governed by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, namely Sections 81, 82, 84 – 87 and 89. It is however Section 81 that sets out the general principle of speeding in that;
“it is not lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 mph”.
There are of course exceptions to the general rule and those cover motorways, dual carriage ways, country roads and lanes and some suburban roads where the speed can be as low as 20 mph (particularly around schools and hospitals). The Act goes onto define the meaning of a restricted road and interestingly provides provisions for ensuring that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to the speed limit on a particular road. Sometimes a closer examination and investigation of these provisions and a consideration of the actual speed limits can lead to a favourable result for a driver accused of speeding.
Further, the act provides for specific exemptions for emergency vehicles; however this may not always prevent the police from pursuing a prosecution. In addition, there are provisions limiting the speed for particular classes of vehicles.
It is a general principle of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 that a driver is guilty of an offence if he is speeding. This is referred to in law as an offence of strict liability; where the intention to commit an offence is irrelevant, unfortunately a majority of lay drivers do not appreciate the significance of this type of classification and raise their lack of intention as a defence. This lack of intention can have an unfair consequence as in some cases the extra points on a licence can lead to a court considering a disqualification. Examples of this include where an offence is committed because of a sudden change in speed limit on a motorway or when road works are being carried out. There is no room for intent in the legislation but quite clearly, the lack of intent will have an impact on the level of penalty that is imposed at the end of a case.
When it comes to a matter of proof, the prosecution’s task is relatively easy as they merely need to show that a driver (or the defendant) drove a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding the limit. If these basic elements are proved, then the prosecution will be successful in securing a speeding conviction.
Even if it appears that the prosecution have complied with all of their duties, a defence can still be raised, whether that is a technical or a factual defence will be a matter for discussion and further instructions. It may be the case that a complex point in expert evidence is raised or that an attendance at the scene in question will provide a defence to what appears to be a watertight case. The defence raised by a driver is always a matter of taking careful instructions and closely scrutinising the prosecution evidence..
If the Prosecution are successful in proving it’s case then exceeding the speed limit is generally subject to a maximum fine of level 3 (currently £1,000). The exception is that if the speed limit is exceeded on a motorway then the maximum becomes a level 4 fine (currently £2,500). In addition to a financial penalty a driving licence will be endorsed with a minimum of 3 points to a maximum of 6 points (this will soon change when s.16 of Road safety Act 2006 is implemented), in some cases, if the offence is regarded as being serious enough, a disqualification can follow. This approach can have an unfortunate consequence for a driver, as they can find themselves facing disqualification for an offence of speeding when there was genuinely no intent to break the law. Disqualification may also follow if the driver is considered by the Court as a “totter”. However, endorsement does not necessarily lead to a disqualification. Sometimes, a “special reasons” argument can be presented in order to persuade the court not to place points on a driving licence. These arguments turn on the nature of the circumstances surrounding the offence allow the driver to consider themselves as being technically guilty. Famous examples include members of the emergency services being prosecuted for offences of speeding. An alternative argument that can be used to save a driver from disqualification is an argument for “exceptional hardship”, this allows the court to take into account the impact on a drivers life should he or she lose the ability to drive. The most relevant argument that concerns a particular driver is clearly a point for discussion.
Sometimes it is prudent to give careful consideration to the paperwork issued in the case to ensure that the prosecuting authorities (whether they be the police or the CPS) have complied with the requirements to give a proper Notice of Intended Prosecution (Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988) and to look at whether the warning is received within the prescribed period of the alleged offence.
If there are any issues in this article that concern you then more detailed and specific advice relevant to your particular situation can be given through our fixed fee advice scheme. We will consider all the relevant documentation if provided to us and then advise you over the phone. Unlike other organisations you will be able to speak to an experienced lawyer who has actually appeared in court and has represented defendants in Road Traffic Offence cases, that person will be either a senior solicitor or a Partner in this firm. That advice will then be confirmed in writing. You can of course choose to instruct us to represent you in relation to your case and we are able to cover road traffic cases nationally.
For further information please contact Isaac Mirza or Peter Grogan by telephone on 0845 402 0001.
