Listed Below are just a few of the Notable Motoring Cases undertaken by Coral Fitzgerald as litigator and / or advocate.
R v Z - duress / necessity established in a speeding case where the client was being pursued by gang members. Prosecution refused to drop the case, despite numerous representations. (Coral Fitzgerald litigator and advocate)
R v A - Evidence of a speed camera speeding matter successfully challenged on the basis of the vehicle being cloned. (Coral Fitzgerald litigator and advocate)
R v B - Driver summonsed for speeding (82 in a 60) when driving a VW Amarok on the A12. The 60 m p h limit was alleged on the basis of the vehicle being a commercial vehicle. Lengthy representations that the particular model of vehicle was not subject to the 60 m p h limit were ultimately successful and the charge amended accordingly. (Coral Fitzgerald - litigator and advocate)
R v W - evidence of a speed in a pursuit (wherein other offences were also charged) successfully challenged (relevant also to a dangerous driving charge) by refence to the timings of events and eyewitness testimony. (Coral Fitzgerald litigator and advocate)
R v B - Failing to Furnish driver details summonsed following a speed camera detection - despite Section 172 Notice being completed. Police complain that they cannot 'find,' the person named in the Section 172 Notice! Matter discontinued on the morning of the trial due to certain technical errors noted in the Prosecution case.
R v T - disqualification avoided in a speeding case where the speed recorded was in excess of 110 m p h.
Using a Mobile Phone Whilst Driving
R v J - Evidence of two police officers (alleging they witnessed the client using a mobile telephone whilst driving) succesfully challenged. Client acquitted. (Coral Fitzgerald as litigator and advocate)
R v T - client seen using mobile telephone in a petrol station. Skeleton argument submitted as regards the definition of a road. Initial ruling from District Juge that the petrol station in question (due to its particular location and peculiarities) was not a road. Matter discontinued at half time - on the basis there was no evidence the client used the telephone on a road. (Beware here - most petrol stations would fulfil the definition of road!) Coral Fitzgerald as Litigator and Advocate.
R v Y - Instructed on a case of no insurance where the broker had been paid and an insurance certificate issued. Broker then failed to pass funds to the Insurer, such that no insurance was in place. Instructed to run the matter as a Special Reason. Successful pre-court negotiation with the Prosecution leads to the case being discontinued before the next Court hearing. (Coral Fitzgerad as litigator - no advocacy required).
R v X - Instructed on a case of no insurance wherein the client was driving the vehicle under another's trader's policy. Unusual facts, but successful representations and evidence to the Prosecution (despite their reluctance to accept the circumstances) leads to no evidence being offered. (Coral Fitzgerald as litigator - no advocacy required)
R v A - Instructed on a case of no insurance for European client. Wife purchased insurance believing it was the 'car' that was insured (as on the continent) and not the driver. Special Reasons Hearing successful. (Coral Fitzgerald litigator and advocate).
Drink and Drug Driving
R v A - Successful challenge to the reading of the intoximeter machine on the basis of Police Radios in the vicinity.
R v B - Post driving alcohol consumption case - client acquitted following expert back
R v M - 12 months disqualification (with Drink Drive rehabilitation course) on a reading of 69 in breath.
Fail To Provide A Specimen
R v Z - Extremely intoxicated client required to provide a specimen of breath at home but refused on the basis he had neither driven, nor been anywhere near his vehicle. Tenuous eyewitness evidence to the contrary. Prosecution discontinue the case following lengthy and repeated representations.
R v O - Client leaves home address and moves his vehicle some way along the road. Police attend (for an unrelated incident) and require client to give a specimen of breath - client refuses on the basis he is not 'driving,' the vehicle. Client does not wish to run a special reasons hearing on the basis of the shortness of distance driven - but Magistrates sympathetic following mitigation and impose a 12 month disqualification (despite some evidence of considerable impairment).
R v M - Matter of Speeding results in 12 points on licence - disqualification avoided for self-employed defendant whose employees livelihoods were at stake if licence lost. (Coral Fitzgerald litigator and advocate)
R v P - Successful appeal to the Crown Court against refusal of exceptional hardship by the Magistrates Court. Case where no one issue was sufficient for EH - but the cumulative effect of a number of issues led to a positive finding (Coral Fitzgerald as Advocate)
R v X - Matter of careless driving with four witnesses all confirming the description of a 'blue vauxhall,' driving inappropriately. Witnesses all gave similar evidence in chief but were then successfully cross examined about the details and gave considerably different evidence - such that only an acquittal was appropriate. (Coral Fitzgerald - litigator and advocate)
R v F Successful representations to the Prosecution to accept a charge to careless driving (dangerous driving having been charged) which involved a motorcyle going the wrong way around two roundabouts. (Coral Fitzgerald litigator and advocate)
R v A - Acquittal in a case wherein the Prosecution allege client was driving the vehicle during an incident in a petrol station. Apparently overwhelming evidence but witnesses give such poor evidence under cross examination that the matter is discontinued following a half time submission. (Coral Fitzgerald as litigator and advocate).