When our client delivered his car to the mechanics to have his MOT check completed, he had no idea that it would end up in him receiving a notice of intended prosecution from the police.
A member of the public had submitted dashcam footage and further evidence of the incident. This evidence showed the mechanic driving our client’s car without due care for other road users at the time on Great Cambridge Road in Enfield.
At the time of the incident, our client’s car was in the hands of his mechanics and was allegedly being driven without permission by the mechanic.
Our client never intended for the mechanic to drive their car.
When our client received notice of intended prosecution, they submitted the name of the mechanic as the actual driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The driver was later charged with having no insurance while driving a motor vehicle and careless driving.
Our expert criminal defence solicitor Duygu Basiguzel made adept representations to the Crown Prosecution Service before trial. This representation stated that our client did in fact have insurance at the time of the alleged incident. The driver at the time did not have insurance and signed a declaration that he did not, which was presented to the Crown. He was later separately sentenced.
Basigusel also implored the Crown Prosecution Service, making representations that it was not in the public interest to prosecute this alleged offence and case. Our representations to the Crown demonstrated that our client’s actions did not constitute the culpability necessary to prosecute according to the sentencing guidelines of this alleged offence.
Our client’s case received an absolute discharge at Lavender Hill Magistrates Court.