About Motoring Defence Solicitors London
Specialist Defence Lawyers for Serious Motor Offences
Motoring Defence Solicitors provide expert and specialist representation to motorists nationwide.
Neil Sargeant is a road traffic specialist having worked exclusively within motor law since 2008. He started his career at the Crown Prosecution Service in Liverpool but soon realised that his passion lay in defence work. Over the years, Neil has worked with the most successful motor law firms in the country as well as starting and managing two successful motor law departments. He has maintained an outstanding rate of client-acquittals and brought his expertise to us in 2018.
Motor Law is a niche area of criminal practice and there is a genuine rarity of expertise in this area. In addition to having a specialist lawyer, it is important to have the right team working on your case and Neil has maintained relationships with the country’s leading expert witnesses and barristers to help ensure you have the best possible chance of success.
OUR SPECIALIST MOTORING DEFENCE TEAM
Neil first met Gillian in 2008 when Neil joined his first road traffic firm. Following their respective time at that firm, both went on to further their careers at leading road traffic firms only to come full circle at Motoring Defence Solicitors. They both want to ensure you are comfortable and fully informed before you make any commitment about your case.
Find out more about our motoring defence team below:
Neil Sargeant
Neil has specialised in road traffic law since 2008 and has worked in the UK’s leading road traffic firms which include 2 previous departments he had started and managed himself. Neil will approach your case not as a statistic, but as a person who needs our help. This quality is often singled-out by clients as one of the benefits of having instructed us and Neil is repeatedly praised for his compassion and understanding which forms the bedrock of his client care. We know that being charged with any offence is intimidating, but Neil will provide expert legal advice and go beyond what is expected to help reassure you.
Gillian Forrest
Gillian Forrest was admitted to the roll of solicitors in 2007 after completing her legal training with Her Majesty’s Court Service, advising magistrates on sentencing, before securing a position and qualifying as a solicitor with Nick Freeman aka Mr. Loophole, learning her craft as a criminal defence practitioner, specialising in motor defence law. She has over 20 years experience investigating criminal cases, with 15 years’ post-qualified experience as a solicitor.
Testimonials
Customer Testimonials
Rhys
10/10 Service!! I had a drug driving case (cannabis) and was looking at a minimum of a 3 year ban. Neil and Richard were brilliant and picked up on cr...
David
I sought Neil Sargeant’s help with an appeal against a drink driving conviction after reading excellent reviews and success statistics online – how ac...
Harriet
Spoke to Gillian who was lovely, understood my work schedule and didn’t give up on me. Court put my charges up from drink driving to unfit to drive but Gillian kept me reassured.
James
Gillian and the team were spectacular in understanding the circumstances we as a family had found ourself in and gave us great advice, constant support and clear information.
Client 7 times over legal limit
Following unfavourable findings from expert, client changed plea to guilty.
Sentenced to minimum 12 months disqualification and £135 fine, far below sentencing guidelines.
Client 7 times over legal limit
Following unfavourable findings from expert, client changed plea to guilty.
Sentenced to minimum 12 months disqualification and £135 fine, far below sentencing guidelines.
Crown concede insufficient evidence upon which to secure a conviction.
Case discontinued prior to trial.
Crown applied to adjourn on the day of trial. Defence oppose Crown’s application.
Court refuse to adjourn, prosecutor offered no evidence.
Case dismissed.
A half time submission was made on the basis of the failure to give the statutory warning.
The submission was successful and the case was dismissed.
Mr. T. was therefore found not guilty.
Defence of reasonable excuse. Crown accepted that there was no offer and refusal to see a health care practitioner. Defence asserted that no warning was given. Judge finds that there must be some doubt.
Not guilty verdict.
Mr A was charged with drink driving having donating a sample of blood that was found to contain 95 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. Mr A entered a plea of not guilty and mere days afterwards, we were able to highlight significant flaws in the prosecution’s case which led to the matter being dropped entirely.
Mr M’s case lasted several months and during that time we identified numerous issues with the case against our client. The prosecution failed to comply with certain legal obligations and we saw an opportunity to have the case against Mr M withdrawn which was successful.
Another drink driving case where the matter was ultimately dropped due to significant breaches of procedure by the Prosecution.
Mr N came to us facing a very serious charge of drink driving after his blood sample was found to contain 303 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. This level of alcohol and a previous, recent conviction placed him at a significant risk of a custodial penalty. Mr N always insisted however that the blood sample analysis simply could not be correct and following forensic examination of the police procedure, we were able to demonstrate to the court that the analysis of the blood sample could not be relied upon and Mr N was found not guilty. This is an example of how wrong the Prosecution can sometimes get it and had Mr N just believed the charges against him he could have landed himself in prison due to poor-quality evidence.
When Miss J approached us she was hugely concerned about the impact that a drink driving conviction would have upon a legal career being midway through her legal studies. Miss J had attended a party and strongly suspected that her drink had been laced. She had intended to drive to and from the party and so only drank coca-cola but left her drink unattended numerous times. When her breath sample had an alcohol concentration of 82 microgrammes she knew that something was not right. Ultimately we were able to have the case against Miss J dropped due to significant flaws in the Prosecution’s case and her future legal career was saved.
Mr T had tested positive for cannabis but did not believe he should have been over the limit due to the amount of time between smoking the drug and driving the vehicle (which was several days). We had having scrutinised the method of analysis used to test the blood, we found various inconsistencies which ultimately resulted in the blood sample being excluded from evidence and Mr T was acquitted.
Mr K was a Bulgarian national charged with drink driving. The police procedure during an investigation into drink driving is extremely important and the suspect must be able to understand what is being asked of him. Due to Mr K’s poor English and the lack of an interpreter, the Court found that the proceedings were ultimately unfair and the evidence against Mr K was excluded.
Mr E was charged with this offence after being involved in a road traffic accident. He always maintained that he did actually try to provide a breath sample and never did he refuse. His instructions were that the officers gave him conflicting information and rushed through the procedure despite him offering a potential medical reason that could explain his inability to give a breath sample. Ultimately the court found that the police did not adhere to the strict procedure in place and found that Mr E had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample and was subsequently found not guilty.
Mr O was charged with drink driving and we were approached by his concerned sister who wanted to help protect her brother from a conviction. This case was brought to a swift conclusion after the CPS failed to comply with certain legal obligations and Mr O was acquittal and awarded costs. You can read a testimonial here
Miss N was charged with drink driving even though she was adamant she had not consumed enough alcohol to tip her over the legal limit. Despite that insistence, Miss N was still sceptical about what we could achieve for her. The case lasted little over 4 months which we know proved to be a stressful time for Miss N as she constantly doubted her decision to challenge the case. The presumption is always that the police/CPS will not get things wrong. Ultimately Miss N was acquitted of drink driving and awarded costs. You can read a personal testimonial from Miss N by clicking here
Defendant was charged with two counts of failing to furnish information. The defendant was ultimately acquitted of both charges and awarded a defence costs order to recover some of her legal fees.
Successfully challenged the accuracy of the evidential breath testing device which resulted in our client being acquitted of drink driving and having costs awarded.
Complicated challenge to the admissibility of the breath test. Our client was ultimately found not guilty and awarded costs.
Defendant was a foreign national charged with two counts of drink driving. The cases involved a number of technical and procedural challenges which led to the evidence being excluded in each case. The defendant was found not guilty in both cases and also awarded costs for both cases.
Mr H was charged with failing to provide as a result of the police officers failing to follow the correct procedure during the breath test. We were able to show that the defendant had suffered prejudice as a result of the breach in procedure which resulted in his acquittal and award of costs.
Defendant contacted us significantly panicked at the charges he faced and, on papers, the case against him seemed strong. After considering the evidence in the case however it became apparent that the charges were almost baseless and there was no evidence to support either allegation at trial. The defendant, who had almost pleaded guilty before seeking advice, was acquitted of all charges.
Defendant contacted us significantly panicked at the charges he faced and, on papers, the case against him seemed strong. After considering the evidence in the case however it became apparent that the charges were almost baseless and there was no evidence to support either allegation at trial. The defendant, who had almost pleaded guilty before seeking advice, was acquitted of all charges.
A foreign national who was charged with drink driving. We are able to successfully argue that a language barrier resulted in unfairness during the breath test procedure and the evidence against our client was excluded. Mr C was found not guilty of drink driving and awarded his costs.
Our client had found herself charged with driving with no insurance even though she was not the driver nor even in the car at the time. The charges were ultimately dropped and the defendant was awarded her costs.
Case involved a technical but successful challenge to the reliability of the breath testing device. The device was found to be unreliable and the defendant was found not guilty.
The defendant was charged with drug driving but the police had committed a seemingly insignificant breach of procedure that ultimately had significant consequences. Upon this breach being highlighted to the Prosecution, they decided to drop the case entirely and the defendant was awarded his costs.
