Free Traffic Legal Advice

Going forwards, what is done is done. Can’t change it, sorry
The not guilty plea has been accepted and have been given a date in Feb 2025.

What is done can be undone. You can change a not guilty plea at any time.

My one hope is to write to the CPS, asking them to drop the case. As there’s no public interest in prosecuting me. It reached this stage due to a series of unfortunate events and if you actually quote the highway code and RTA sect 3 then I do have a leg to stand on.

You are conflating two different issues.

When deciding whether to prosecute, the CPS (or in your case, almost certainly the police) conduct a two stage test. The first is the “evidential test”. They must be satisfied there is sufficient reliable and credible enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction".

That test was obviously passed. I don’t know why you particularly believe you have a chance of success because we only have your brief description of the incident. But s3ZA (Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving) says that "a person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

Besides, I got the historical weather forecasts for that day. Which would back me up.

Back you up in what way? If the weather conditions are poor, competent and careful drivers take extra care. All you are doing by proving it was wet is to show that you attempted a manoeuvre that would have been risky enough in the dry.

I can only comment on the passage from your description and say that in my view, competent and careful drivers, who are concerned at the proximity of a large vehicle in narrow lanes and poor weather, would not normally try to overtake it. I would think the most sensible option would be to slow down and avoid it in that way. But of course I wasn’t there. I've really no idea what passages in the Highway Code recommend what you did.

Only if this first test is passed  will they go on to undertake the “public interest” test. Very broadly, this says that "a prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that the public interest factors tending against prosecution outweigh those tending in favour." You’ve said a couple of times you believe this test has not been met. So what “public interest” factors do you believe are against prosecuting you (apart from it all being a bit too much bother)?

So how does the officer or I put forward the case? I presume he too would be needed in court?

If you’re going to pay a solicitor two grand, I would leave those worries to him.

Isn't it all a waste of time and resources

By that reasoning, all anybody has to do when facing prosecution for a minor traffic offence is to plead not guilty and the police should chuck it in because it’s a waste of time and resources. You have been prosecuted because the police believe you committed an offence. They offered you an out-of-court solution which for some reason was not taken up. Their only alternative is to prosecute you. If you plead not guilty that will involve a trial.

I’m sorry if I appear critical. I’m simply expressing my view of how I think this will pan out. I believe there is a very good chance you will be convicted and I’m trying to save you (quite) a few quid.

On which point, I take it your solicitor has pointed out the potential cost of failure in court. In case he hasn’t, you will pay a fine of probably half a week’s net income. You will also pay a surcharge of 40% of that fine. On top of that the prosecution will ask for costs which will be at least £650. So if your income is £500pw, it will cost you £1,000. Plus two more for the solicitor (which, of course, he gets whether you are successful or not).

Of course it's your choice, but I know what I would do.

Thanks
I thought I could base my request to the CPS on the following points:

1) The police version of events can be questioned, and I feel it has been exaggerated. There seems to be a lack of knowledge in the highway code too.
I was careful rather than careless and didn’t act inconsiderably to other drivers, except those who were driving too fast for the conditions.
I also wish to say that the Police officer is exaggerating about there being traffic congestion as it was midnight and the traffic was light
---------------------------------
I would quote the following rules from the Highway Code. Which deal with driving at night and driving in wet weather
Rule 125
The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions.
Driving at speeds to fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous.
You should always reduce your speed when
 -Weather conditions make it safer to do so
- driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users

Rule 227
In wet weather, stopping distances will be at least double those required for dry roads
( 2 seconds vs 4 seconds)
The rain and spray from vehicles may make it difficult to see and be seen



I have been charged under section 3 of the RTA 1988 and schedule  2 of the RTOA 1988
Under section 3, careless  and inconsiderate driving is defined as


Section 3  of the Road traffic Act 1988:


Careless and inconsiderate driving
Definition
If a person drives without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for the other person using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence

Meaning of careless or inconsiderate driving

Careless: The way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
In determining for purpose of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he would be expected  to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused

Inconsiderate: Only if others are inconvenienced by his driving

--

Reasons for asking the CPS to drop a case

1.   How serious is the offence committed?
2.   How culpable is the suspect?
3.   What is the impact on the community?
4.   Is the prosecution proportionate to the offence?

Factors such as the minor nature of the offence,
 lack of harm to the public, or alternative ways of addressing the matter can be raised to support this argument.

=====
The above is something I picked up from google YouTube, and various other searches on the net

If your original mitigation contained just a fraction of what you've explained here, I am not at all surprised you guilty plea was rejected.

Your trial will not be held under the Single Justice Procedure. That is only for straightforward guilty pleas. You will face a trial before three Magistrates or possibly (but less likely) a District Judge sitting alone. It will be governed by all the procedural rules which all criminal courts are subject to and will probably take at least an hour.

I think most of your points have been addressed. You should note that the CPS is unlikely to have been involved in your case. Charging decisions for minor traffic offences are usually taken by the police. They have made that decision and I see no reason for them to change their minds.

If you really want to simply pay a fine and accept the points the way to do that is to plead guilty. You can explain the reason why the FP was not taken up and if you are lucky the court may decide to sentence you at the FP level, I doubt it as you have already put the court and the police to extra work, but don't ask and you won't get.

I think generally you haven't grasped the principle here. Many minor traffic offences attract the offer of a fixed penalty. If that offer isn't taken up, the police will prosecute. It's as simple as that. They are extremely unlikely to revisit that decision, especially for the reasons you mention.

This seems to have been an episode of remarkable transformation. You have moved from accepting a fixed penalty, through attempting to plead guilty in court. Then having seen that plea rejected, deciding to ask for the charge to be dropped and if it isn't, to defend the charge at trial.

— So I take an oath and sit in the dock? Be cross examined by the Prosecution?

As the defendant you will be in the dock (provided the courtroom has one) for the duration of your trial. If you decide to give evidence (which you almost certainly will have to for any chance of success) you will be asked to give it from the witness box under oath or affirmation.

What would the evidence be? The Officer’s statement?

I would imagine so. You should have been served with the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you. If the officer is to be cross-examined he will have to give his evidence in person (or via video link).

What other drivers were doing is nothing to do with you and they certainly will not be involved in your trial.

Your solicitor should explain the trial process to you. Least he can do for two grand.