Chris Tarrant fined for double speeding offence

Chris Tarrant was given six points on his licence and fined £525 today after he was caught speeding twice in 21 minutes on the same stretch of road.

Celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, dubbed Mr Loophole, pleaded guilty on behalf of his client after losing an argument for abuse of process.

District Judge Peter Crabtree, sitting at Reading Magistrates' Court, gave Tarrant, who was not in court, three points for each offence and ordered him to pay a fine of £525 plus £1,630 in costs.

The TV presenter was filmed twice by the same camera exceeding the 30mph limit on Broad Lane in Upper Bucklebury, Berkshire, on the morning of May 20 last year.

He was caught at 10.30am driving his silver Mercedes Benz CL500 at 47mph, cutting a corner.

He was then caught by the same marked van 21 minutes later returning in the other direction at 41mph.

Mr Freeman argued that two summonses for Tarrant to appear in court went missing, meaning he received the third summons 11 weeks after the six-month time limit set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates Act 1980.

But the judge found the delay was not the fault of the prosecution and did not prevent a fair trial.

He also refused to treat the offences as occurring on a single occasion.







The judge said: "47mph is a high speed in a 30mph limit and he crosses the corner slightly.

"He didn't in the second offence and there are no aggravating factors here such as pedestrians or traffic."

The costs included £930 for the Crown Prosecution Service, £700 for an expert report on the incident and an additional £15 victim surcharge.

Mr Freeman said both offences were worthy of fixed penalty fines but said: "The two offences occur 21 minutes apart on the same stretch of road in ideal traffic conditions.

"Had he been 20 minutes down the road going in the same direction you would probably have been of the view it was the some occasion."

He also argued that Tarrant was not warned of his high speed after committing the first offence, in which case he may not have committed the second offence.

Before today, the television presenter already had three points on his licence.









Arguing for an abuse of process, Mr Freeman said: "In essence, the first notification Mr Tarrant had that he was going to be prosecuted for both these offences was 11 weeks beyond the six- month time period."

He said that, in any case, the information needed for the court to issue the summons was only received on November 13, a week before the end of the six-month period.

This meant it was always going to be impossible for his client to be notified in time.

He said: "I would inquire as to why it was left until a week before the end of that period for the information to be laid.

"This is a very straightforward case, it's not the most serious case.

"We stand here 17 months on from the date of the allegations for trial. In my view that's not how the new legislation is designed to deal with this matter.

"None of the delay in terms of the service (of the summonses) is in any way attributable to the defendant. He has responded without prevarication from the outset."

He continued: "In my view there's fault here. It certainly isn't Mr Tarrant's fault. The fault is with the prosecution process.

"It's a substantial error, it's not a small error. It doesn't result in a small delay, it's a substantial delay."

The court heard that it was not known why the summonses were never sent from court to the fixed penalty unit, so Tarrant could be notified.

Mr Freeman speculated that it could only because somebody removed them from the court bag or "the result of utter incompetence".

The court heard that Tarrant was notified in June last year of the possibility of prosecution and was offered a conditional fixed penalty of £60 and three points.

Andrew Perry, prosecuting, said the message was: "We've enough evidence to prosecute you but here's a cheaper way out if you want it."

He said there was "no response" so the authorities pressed ahead with a prosecution.

He added: "There is no question here of any manipulation of the prosecution process."

Leaving court, Mr Freeman said there was no comment on behalf of his client.









Arguing for an abuse of process, Mr Freeman said: "In essence, the first notification Mr Tarrant had that he was going to be prosecuted for both these offences was 11 weeks beyond the six- month time period."

He said that, in any case, the information needed for the court to issue the summons was only received on November 13, a week before the end of the six-month period.

This meant it was always going to be impossible for his client to be notified in time.

He said: "I would inquire as to why it was left until a week before the end of that period for the information to be laid.

"This is a very straightforward case, it's not the most serious case.

"We stand here 17 months on from the date of the allegations for trial. In my view that's not how the new legislation is designed to deal with this matter.

"None of the delay in terms of the service (of the summonses) is in any way attributable to the defendant. He has responded without prevarication from the outset."

He continued: "In my view there's fault here. It certainly isn't Mr Tarrant's fault. The fault is with the prosecution process.

"It's a substantial error, it's not a small error. It doesn't result in a small delay, it's a substantial delay."

The court heard that it was not known why the summonses were never sent from court to the fixed penalty unit, so Tarrant could be notified.

Mr Freeman speculated that it could only because somebody removed them from the court bag or "the result of utter incompetence".

The court heard that Tarrant was notified in June last year of the possibility of prosecution and was offered a conditional fixed penalty of £60 and three points.

Andrew Perry, prosecuting, said the message was: "We've enough evidence to prosecute you but here's a cheaper way out if you want it."

He said there was "no response" so the authorities pressed ahead with a prosecution.

He added: "There is no question here of any manipulation of the prosecution process."

Leaving court, Mr Freeman said there was no comment on behalf of his client.

















Arguing for an abuse of process, Mr Freeman said: "In essence, the first notification Mr Tarrant had that he was going to be prosecuted for both these offences was 11 weeks beyond the six- month time period."

He said that, in any case, the information needed for the court to issue the summons was only received on November 13, a week before the end of the six-month period.



This meant it was always going to be impossible for his client to be notified in time.



He said: "I would inquire as to why it was left until a week before the end of that period for the information to be laid.



"This is a very straightforward case, it's not the most serious case.



"We stand here 17 months on from the date of the allegations for trial. In my view that's not how the new legislation is designed to deal with this matter.



"None of the delay in terms of the service (of the summonses) is in any way attributable to the defendant. He has responded without prevarication from the outset."



He continued: "In my view there's fault here. It certainly isn't Mr Tarrant's fault. The fault is with the prosecution process.



"It's a substantial error, it's not a small error. It doesn't result in a small delay, it's a substantial delay."



The court heard that it was not known why the summonses were never sent from court to the fixed penalty unit, so Tarrant could be notified.



Mr Freeman speculated that it could only because somebody removed them from the court bag or "the result of utter incompetence".



The court heard that Tarrant was notified in June last year of the possibility of prosecution and was offered a conditional fixed penalty of £60 and three points.



Andrew Perry, prosecuting, said the message was: "We've enough evidence to prosecute you but here's a cheaper way out if you want it."



He said there was "no response" so the authorities pressed ahead with a prosecution.



He added: "There is no question here of any manipulation of the prosecution process."



Leaving court, Mr Freeman said there was no comment on behalf of his client.





Start your day with The Independent, sign up for daily news emails
  • Get to the point
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?

Day In a Page

Fishing for votes with Nigel Farage: The Ukip leader shows how he can work an audience as he casts his line to the disaffected of Grimsby

Fishing is on Nigel Farage's mind

Ukip leader casts a line to the disaffected
Who is bombing whom in the Middle East? It's amazing they don't all hit each other

Who is bombing whom in the Middle East?

Robert Fisk untangles the countries and factions
China's influence on fashion: At the top of the game both creatively and commercially

China's influence on fashion

At the top of the game both creatively and commercially
Lord O’Donnell: Former cabinet secretary on the election and life away from the levers of power

The man known as GOD has a reputation for getting the job done

Lord O'Donnell's three principles of rule
Rainbow shades: It's all bright on the night

Rainbow shades

It's all bright on the night
'It was first time I had ever tasted chocolate. I kept a piece, and when Amsterdam was liberated, I gave it to the first Allied soldier I saw'

Bread from heaven

Dutch survivors thank RAF for World War II drop that saved millions
Britain will be 'run for the wealthy and powerful' if Tories retain power - Labour

How 'the Axe' helped Labour

UK will be 'run for the wealthy and powerful' if Tories retain power
Rare and exclusive video shows the horrific price paid by activists for challenging the rule of jihadist extremists in Syria

The price to be paid for challenging the rule of extremists

A revolution now 'consuming its own children'
Welcome to the world of Megagames

Welcome to the world of Megagames

300 players take part in Watch the Skies! board game in London
'Nymphomaniac' actress reveals what it was really like to star in one of the most explicit films ever

Charlotte Gainsbourg on 'Nymphomaniac'

Starring in one of the most explicit films ever
Robert Fisk in Abu Dhabi: The Emirates' out-of-sight migrant workers helping to build the dream projects of its rulers

Robert Fisk in Abu Dhabi

The Emirates' out-of-sight migrant workers helping to build the dream projects of its rulers
Vince Cable interview: Charging fees for employment tribunals was 'a very bad move'

Vince Cable exclusive interview

Charging fees for employment tribunals was 'a very bad move'
Iwan Rheon interview: Game of Thrones star returns to his Welsh roots to record debut album

Iwan Rheon is returning to his Welsh roots

Rheon is best known for his role as the Bastard of Bolton. It's gruelling playing a sadistic torturer, he tells Craig McLean, but it hasn't stopped him recording an album of Welsh psychedelia
Morne Hardenberg interview: Cameraman for BBC's upcoming show Shark on filming the ocean's most dangerous predator

It's time for my close-up

Meet the man who films great whites for a living
Increasing numbers of homeless people in America keep their mobile phones on the streets

Homeless people keep mobile phones

A homeless person with a smartphone is a common sight in the US. And that's creating a network where the 'hobo' community can share information - and fight stigma - like never before