In deciding whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court must not take into account: A person who chooses to drive has a duty to ensure they are legally entitled to do so. It is no defence for that person to say that they thought a period of disqualification had expired, or that they were not aware that they had been disqualified in their absence.

If the police have stopped a driver at the roadside and charged him/her with one of the above offences it is likely that the driver will receive a verbal Section 1 warning. The police may not use the words 'speeding', 'careless driving' or 'dangerous driving'. Instead, they may state that they are warning the driver of a possible prosecution e.g. for a contravention of section 2 or section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Sign up for email updates

remove the requirement for drivers to produce and surrender their driving licence to the police or fixed penalty office before accepting a fixed penalty notice or a conditional offer for a motoring offence, and remove the requirement to surrender a driving licence prior to a court hearing for a road traffic offence (individuals will be required to take their licence to the court if attending a hearing)

Prosecutors should note that the list given at Regulation 110(6)(c) is non-exhaustive and therefore it is not necessary to prove that one of these actions was being carried out, provided that there is evidence that what was done can be properly be described as “using” the phone/device. The date of conviction, on the proviso that the date of the offence was no earlier than 1 August 2017. Mobile phones and driving Section 24 RTOA 1988 (as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) allows a court which has returned a verdict of 'not guilty' to certain either way and summary offences, to convict for a specified alternative offence, provided that the content of the charge amounts to an allegation of an alternative offence. Alternative verdicts are permitted in relation to the summary offences of:Is the date of conviction or the date of the offence used to determine if the driver falls within the arrangements? for fees to be set at a level that exceeds cost recovery for the courses, and which enable an element of the fee to be charged in relation to the costs of promoting road safety A person who uses their phone while stationary at traffic lights will be distracted and less able to move off safely when the lights change. Similar considerations would apply to a driver stationary in a traffic jam.

Other vehicles which are not currently lawful for use on public roads unless registered and insured include self-balancing scooters (e.g. Segways), mini-Segways, Hoverboards, and single-wheel electric skateboards. Charge considerations Causing danger to other road users – section 22A RTA 1988 Where the court does not find grounds for mitigating the normal consequences of the conviction then a period of disqualification of at least the statutory minimum must be imposed. If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account. There is no mutual recognition of penalty points between the jurisdictions, so the UK court cannot take into account Irish penalty points, for totting up purposes. However, the court has a wide discretion, in considering whether to impose discretionary disqualifications in the UK, to consider all mitigating or aggravating factors. The court therefore may consider the driver's licence history generally.

Changes over time for: Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

The time limit for a written warning is 14 days from the date of the offence. It is important to note, however, that only the registered keeper requires to receive such a warning within 14 days. For example, if you lease your car, the lessor will be the registered keeper. It is this person that must receive the warning within 14 days. That person should then identify you as the driver. It is very common, therefore, for the driver to receive his own warning after 14 days has elapsed. This does not invalidate the warning. If, however, you are the registered keeper and you receive a written Section 1 warning after 14 days have elapsed then the prosecution against you may be fatally flawed. Under section 143(1)(a) RTA 1988 "a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that person... a policy of insurance...". Under section 145 RTA 1988 the policy must be issued by an authorised insurer and must insure for death or bodily injury to any person, or damage to property, caused by, or arising out of, the use of a vehicle on a road in Great Britain, i.e. third party insurance. note part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Expert Evidence) and secure expert evidence where the defence expert’s statement is incorrect, inconclusive or misleading. The flash of a GATSO camera in your rear view mirror is often the start of that sinking feeling that lets you know that your licence may be in jeopardy. That is probably when the worry sets in. If no formal notice, termed a Notice of Intended Prosecution, is received by the registered keeper within 14 days then you can stop worrying as the registered keeper is required to receive such a notice within 14 days of the alleged contravention. It is important to remember, however, that this time limit ONLY applies to the registered keeper who may or may not be the driver. The Notice requires to give details of the nature of the alleged offence as well as the time and place of the alleged contravention. Although a certain latitude can be allowed, significant errors as to time and/or place can potentially mean the Notice is invalid and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ['RTOA 1988'] provides that a defendant cannot be convicted of certain road traffic offences set out in schedule 1 RTOA 1988 unless they have been warned that the question of prosecution would be considered. Such a warning is normally known as a "notice of intended prosecution", or NIP.