Overview:
Our client came to Ashworth Motoring Law facing two separate allegations arising from the same incident: a speeding allegation and an allegation of failing to provide driver information. He accepted from the outset that he had been the driver on the day in question. What he did not accept was the suggestion that he had failed to respond when asked to identify himself.
Our client maintained that he had replied to the original section 172 request (Notice of Intended Prosecution) within time, then completed and sent a further response by recorded delivery when told that nothing had been received, yet he was still prosecuted. By focusing on the paperwork trail, the timing of the replies and the realistic objective in court, the failure to identify offence was dropped at Court.
The allegation:
Our client was accused of driving above the 30mph limit on a restricted road in Lancashire. He recalled a mobile speed camera and accepted that he had been travelling just over the limit. He initially believed he might be offered a speed awareness course because the speed was only just over 30mph and he had no active penalty points on his licence.
Instead, the case escalated. By the time the matter reached the Magistrates’ court, he was dealing with two allegations: speeding and failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver. That second allegation carried obvious significance because it suggested non-compliance, even though his position throughout was that he had been cooperating.
The problem with the prosecution case:
Our client received the first notice asking him to identify the driver and he replied straight away by ordinary post, naming himself. He then received further correspondence stating that no reply had been received. Concerned by that, he completed the form again and sent it back by recorded delivery, receiving proof of receipt.
Nevertheless, the prosecution proceeded with the section 172 failure to identify allegation despite that history. The prosecution evidence received did not present the full picture of his responses and later correspondence. This created an incorrect impression of a lack of compliance when, in fact, he had repeatedly tried to engage and explain what had happened. That is exactly the kind of evidential problem that needs careful attention rather than a rushed plea to get things over with quickly.
Why this mattered for our client:
Our client was not at risk of a driving disqualification, nor was he at risk of having his license revoked. He had held a driving licence for more than two decades, had kept a clean licence for over 16 years, had never been disqualified and had never previously been to court. However he was keen to clear his name after being accused of committing an offence he was innocent of.
How Ashworth Motoring Law approached the case:
Our approach was to separate what could sensibly be accepted from what should be contested. Our client was not trying to avoid responsibility for the underlying speeding matter. The defence strategy was therefore to accept the speeding allegation while contesting the failure to furnish allegation by relying on the documented history of replies, the second response sent by recorded delivery and the proof of posting.
Ashworth Motoring Law prepared the case on that basis. Our barrister was specifically instructed to seek withdrawal of the section 172 failure to identify allegation in favour of a guilty plea to the original speeding offence. This was a practical, evidence-led approach aimed at the best realistic and most cost-effective outcome for our client, not an argument for argument’s sake.
Good motoring defence work is about identifying the pressure points in the evidence, and presenting a focused position that the court and prosecution can understand.
The outcome:
The case came before Preston Magistrates’ Court and Counsel succeeded in persuading the prosecution to drop the section 172 failure to identify allegation, leaving the client to plead guilty to speeding only. The final sentence was 3 points and a £100 fine; the same he would have received had he been given the opportunity to accept a fixed penalty offer.
What our client had to say about our services in his testimonial feedback review:
“Failing to supply evidence was a huge worry. Having the police drop the charge was very satisfying. Thoroughly professional throughout”
When asked what he liked best about the service provided by Ashworth Motoring Law, he said:
“The service was very efficient and the advice calm and reassuring.”
He also said:
“Having legal representation was a huge weight off my mind. I would definitely recommend you to others”
Need help with a motoring allegation?
If you are facing a speeding allegation, a section 172 failing to identify the driver allegation, or both, early advice can matter. A case may turn on what was sent, when it was sent and whether the paperwork trail supports your position.
If you need clear, practical advice on the best way forward in a motoring case, get in touch with our team of specialist motoring law solicitors on 0330 33 22 770.
