Irregularities with the road markings: The defendant's lawyer argued that their perception of their speed was affected by irregular road markings; i.e. they thought they were traveling at a slower speed (99mph) than what they were doing in reality (112mp).

The court allowed the driver to plead guilty to the slower speed of 99mph. This reduction in 13mph allowed them a much less severe punishment (4 points instead of 6 points and a £1,000 fine), saving them from a totting up ban.

Lee Bowyer

Using a mobile phone while driving: The defendant's legal team argued that they were using their phone to record a memo rather than having a two way conversation- such a purpose was not illegal under current law.

The entire case was dropped, saving the defendant a £1,000 fine and 6 points.

Jimmy Car

Using a lease car: The defendant was driving a car loaned to them by a manufacturer. They were caught doing 82mph in a 50mph zone. Their lawyers argued that the prosecution did not offer evidence as to who the actual driver was at the time of the offence, and the case was dropped.

This acquittal saved the defendant a 2 month ban and a £1,000 fine.

Jeremy Clarkson

14 Day Rule: The defendant was caught on camera doing 87mph in a temporary 50mph zone. Their lawyers argued that the Notice Of Intended Prosecution was received two days outside the 14 day rule.

The case was subsequently dropped, saving the defendant a 2 month ban and a £1,000 fine.

Andrew Flintoff

Police Procedure: The defendant was caught traveling at 100mph in a 70mph zone in her husbands car. The police sent the husband (who was the registered keeper of the vehicle) a Section 172 (a request to name the driver). The wife filled in the form and the police summoned her to court.

Her lawyer argued that the police should have sent the wife her own section 172 (rather than filling in her husbands) before being charged (i.e. the husband should have replied naming his wife). The case against her was dropped.

This saved the wife 4-6 points and up to a £1,000 fine.

Clare Ince
(Wife of Paul Ince)

Drink Driving: The defendant's lawyers argued that the defendant had a "remarkable capacity for drink" and that the normal prosecution guidelines for blood alcohol levels were not applicable to the defendant.

The police report from the night the defendant was caught corroborated this by stating that "for all intents and purposes [the defendant appeared] to be quite sober."

The defendant had consumed the equivalent of 9 double vodkas, which would normally be a 3 year ban. He was only banned for 18 months.

Steve McFadden

Officer Fails To Turn Up To Court: When the officer in a case failed to turn up to court the defendant's lawyers argued that it was impossible for the prosecution to prove (usually done by visually identifying) the defendant was the one driving.

The defendant was let off for doing 96mph in a 70mph limit, which carries 4-6 points and up to a £1,000 fine.

Colin Montgomerie

Indiscriminating Behaviour: The defendants legal team argued that the officer who caught their client broke ACPO guidelines governing the usage of handheld enforcement equipment.

The lawyers proved that the officer was "Sweeping" all on coming traffic, which is in contrast to ACPO guidelines that clearly state the officer must first visually suspect a car of speeding and then use the device to corroborate that opinion.

The legal team demonstrated the officers abuse of power as he had 'zapped' 390 cars in 73 minutes, one every 11 seconds...and a jogger!

The case resulted in over 100 drivers having their points also quashed as well as the defendant avoiding a totting up ban and fine.

Colin Montgomerie
(Again!)

Exceptional Hardship: The defendant was caught speeding in their Bentley Super car ...facing a 56 day ban.

Their legal team argued that they drive over 55,000 miles a year. If they were to receive a ban they would be unable to both see their children and work, as each were at opposite ends of the country. The defence also argued that no forms of public or private transportation were realistic alternatives.

The court instead imposed a larger fine, but no points, meaning the ban was avoided.

Colin Montgomerie
(Again, Again!)

Failure To Name The Driver: The defendant argued that they did not receive the request to name the driver (Section 172).

Their lawyers built a strong case proving reasonable diligence along with examples of other post which was not received around the same time.

The defendant was acquitted, avoiding 6 points and a £1,000 fine.

Inappropriate Behaviour: The defendants lawyer accused the magistrate of winking at a journalist. The magistrate replied: "Why would I wink at anybody? Do you think I'm gay or something?"

Due to this unprofessional outburst, the defendants legal team had the trial stopped.

At the retrial, the court accepted the explanation that the defendant was now "too depressed" to continue. The case was dropped.

Court Fails To Respond: The defendants legal team requested an adjournment in order to have more time to build their case. The court did not respond one way or another and the hearing was conducted in absentia.

As the legal team could prove they made a request for adjournment and had not received a response the absentia trial verdict was voided, and the case dropped.

You Can't Prove It Was Me: A driver of a car was accused of doing 116mph on the M6 (a 70mph limit). A police officer pulled the car over and the driver identified himself as William Stobart (a haulage tycoon).

At court, William Stobart's legal team argued that someone else familiar with Mr Stobart's details could have lied and given the officer their clients details. To make matters worse for the prosecution, the officer could not recall asking the driver at the time for identification documents.

The court decided that the prosecution had not proven the driver was indeed William Stobart, so the case was dismissed, avoiding William Stobart 6 points and a 3 month ban.

Unreliable Evidence: The defendant was allegedly caught doing 85mph in a 60mph zone in their Mercedes Benz S65 AMG.

The police had stated that the speed measurement was taken over a distance of 519 metres, while the defendants legal team showed that the road section was only 405 metres long, so this (519m) was impossible.

The case was subsequently dropped, helping the defendant avoid 4-6 points and up to a £1,000 fine.

Home Office Approval: The defendants legal team got the case against their client dropped when the speed gun could not be shown to have been used under the correct conditions of approval.

No Posted Speed Limit: The defendant was caught doing 60mph in a 30mph zone ...a potential £1,000 fine and a 3 month ban.

The defendants lawyers argued that there were no signs or street lamps to indicate the change in speed limit.

The case was dismissed immediately.