Safe Speed Forums

Driver in court for speeding to maternity ward
By Tom Peterkin
Last Updated: 1:03PM BST 29/04/2008

A father was taken to court after being caught speeding at 37mph while his wife was in labour in the passenger seat.

Martin Walton, 36, appeared in court after being detected by a speed camera in a 30mph zone as he drove his wife Wendy to hospital on an empty carriageway at 5am on Aug 22 last year.

Yesterday, after being cleared in court of any wrongdoing, Mr Walton branded the episode a "fantastic waste of time and money".

The couple's daughter, Katie, was born shortly after they arrived at Poole Hospital Maternity Unit in Dorset.

Mr Walton knew that he had been flashed and went to court hoping to explain the situation. He was
incensed when the clerk of the court told him that the case could not be dropped.

Having been told that there was no option other than to take the penalty points and a fine, Mr Walton insisted on taking the case further to explain his predicament.

In court, it was decided that there were special circumstances and Mr Walton received an absolute discharge, which means no road traffic offence will be recorded against him nor will any penalty points.

Mr Walton, who incurred hundreds of pounds in legal costs as a result of the case, was exonerated within a few minutes at Bournemouth magistrates' court yesterday.

The IT programme manager, from Ringwood, Hants, said: "Someone who has drunk 25 pints and sticks at 29mph won't get caught but someone in my circumstances is dragged through the courts.

"My wife had to come and give evidence, I spent over £300 on a solicitor and had two days off work.

"There ought to be room for discretion. The courts had the details from the beginning, but they seemed not to have read the evidence.

"At the first hearing another court tried to browbeat me into pleading guilty and take the points and a fine. But I wanted to explain what had happened because there was little else I could do as my wife had felt the baby's head."

In his evidence, Mr Walton said there did not appear to be an emergency at first, but hospital staff had told his wife to get there as soon as possible.

He said: "On the way she explained that her pains were getting worse and the contractions were on top of each other. She felt she could feel the head coming out and she was in an advanced state of labour.

"I was quite worried and did not want her to give birth in the car. I wanted her to get to hospital as quickly and as safely as possible.

"My wife was worried and a bit scared, she felt she was giving birth in the seat and she wasn't calm."

Mrs Walton, 37, said: "I was screaming with pain and trying to breathe through the pain. I was just scared that I was going to give birth in the car."

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said last night: "Mr Walton pleaded guilty to speeding. The first time he gave his reasoning for driving at excessive speed was at court. He failed to provide any of the information that he raised in court at the time he was caught speeding and the Crown Prosecution Service received no communication from Mr Walton in the days before his court hearing.

"If Mr Walton had provided us with the relevant information, the case could have been reviewed again and a decision could have been made as to whether it was in the public interest to proceed."

The courts had the details from the beginning, but they seemed not to have read the evidence

The first time he gave his reasoning for driving at excessive speed was at court. He failed to provide any of the information that he raised in court at the time he was caught speeding and the Crown Prosecution Service received no communication from Mr Walton in the days before his court hearing.

This appears all too common:

but is contradicted by:

What do I believe? The assumed guilt of anyone caught by a camera is now so ingrained that the CPS really did not read the evidence and thus genuinrely believe that the first they heard of it was in court.

The first time he gave his reasoning for driving at excessive speed was at court.

He failed to provide any of the information that he raised in court at the time he was caught speeding

Hi,

I know this is long forgotten but only just seen the posts.

The really annoying thing about all this is the CPS comments when the press picked it up. I went to the magistrates courts at Bournemouth and specifically asked to talk to someone about the case in terms of public interest. The admin window on the second floor told me that there was no-one that I could see and the only way to present such information was to attend court. This I did at the first hearing, all the information was presented and was bullied to accept 3 points. When I say bullied I mean that I was repeatedly told that "Whilst it was my decision whether to plead with mitigating circumstances or not, having heard them in the court they would not accepted by a magistrate". I would not just say, oh OK then give me points and a fine. Immediately the hearing ended as the staff in the court were not qualified to hear mitigating circumstances cases.

I then secured the services of an excellent solicitor advocate who presented the second hearing with exactly the same information as the first and the outcome was different. The CPS statement is completely untrue, it sounds like a stock response that they give. Like everything else to do with the case I guess they are not concerned about accuracy and did not want to put any effort in.

I did not get any costs back but did eventually get a hearing where the magistrates listened.

Katie’s Dad – Mr Walton