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

The saffron censorship that governs India: Why national pride and religious sentiment trump freedom of expression

The saffron censorship that governs India

Zareer Masani reveals why national pride and religious sentiment trump freedom of expression
Prince Charles' 'black spider' letters to be published 'within weeks'

Prince Charles' 'black spider' letters to be published 'within weeks'

Supreme Court rules Dominic Grieve's ministerial veto was invalid
Distressed Zayn Malik fans are cutting themselves - how did fandom get so dark?

How did fandom get so dark?

Grief over Zayn Malik's exit from One Direction seemed amusing until stories of mass 'cutting' emerged. Experts tell Gillian Orr the distress is real, and the girls need support
The galaxy collisions that shed light on unseen parallel Universe

The cosmic collisions that have shed light on unseen parallel Universe

Dark matter study gives scientists insight into mystery of space
The Swedes are adding a gender-neutral pronoun to their dictionary

Swedes introduce gender-neutral pronoun

Why, asks Simon Usborne, must English still struggle awkwardly with the likes of 's/he' and 'they'?
Disney's mega money-making formula: 'Human' remakes of cartoon classics are part of a lucrative, long-term creative plan

Disney's mega money-making formula

'Human' remakes of cartoon classics are part of a lucrative, long-term creative plan
Lobster has gone mainstream with supermarket bargains for £10 or less - but is it any good?

Lobster has gone mainstream

Anthea Gerrie, raised on meaty specimens from the waters around Maine, reveals how to cook up an affordable feast
Easter 2015: 14 best decorations

14 best Easter decorations

Get into the Easter spirit with our pick of accessories, ornaments and tableware
Paul Scholes column: Gareth Bale would be a perfect fit at Manchester United and could turn them into serious title contenders next season

Paul Scholes column

Gareth Bale would be a perfect fit at Manchester United and could turn them into serious title contenders next season
Inside the Kansas greenhouses where Monsanto is 'playing God' with the future of the planet

The future of GM

The greenhouses where Monsanto 'plays God' with the future of the planet
Britain's mild winters could be numbered: why global warming is leaving UK chillier

Britain's mild winters could be numbered

Gulf Stream is slowing down faster than ever, scientists say
Government gives £250,000 to Independent appeal

Government gives £250,000 to Independent appeal

Donation brings total raised by Homeless Veterans campaign to at least £1.25m
Oh dear, the most borrowed book at Bank of England library doesn't inspire confidence

The most borrowed book at Bank of England library? Oh dear

The book's fifth edition is used for Edexcel exams
Cowslips vs honeysuckle: The hunt for the UK’s favourite wildflower

Cowslips vs honeysuckle

It's the hunt for UK’s favourite wildflower
Child abuse scandal: Did a botched blackmail attempt by South African intelligence help Cyril Smith escape justice?

Did a botched blackmail attempt help Cyril Smith escape justice?

A fresh twist reveals the Liberal MP was targeted by the notorious South African intelligence agency Boss