Buckley drug driver who had a child in his van spent £6,000 on 'meritless' defence

Matthew Thomas Collett, 29, represented himself at a sentencing hearing at Flintshire Magistrates’ Court at Mold, after he said the company M.A.J Law told him they wanted a further £1,500 to attend.

Following legal arguments conducted by the firm at an earlier hearing, Collett of Lyme Grove in Buckley, admitted driving with 244 microgrammes of benzoylecgonine – a metabolism of cocaine – when he had a child passenger in his van, on December 31, at Pinfold Lane in the town.

He was banned from driving for 18 months, ordered to carry out 80 hours unpaid work, and he was ordered to pay enhanced costs of £950.

Magistrates went as far as apologising to him that “you were conned” and said that there was no other word for it.

They said that they hoped he would take the issue to the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority to see if he could at least get some of his money back.

Prosecutor Justin Espie told the court that he had a public duty to apply for the full prosecution costs when “a meritless defence” had been put forward.

Collett had been stopped by police when the Ford Transit he was driving was seen to cross a centre white line.

He gave a negative breath test for alcohol but a drugs swipe was positive and important Collett admitted that he had consumed cocaine some 14 hours earlier, he said.

A blood sample showed that he was over the limit.

A not guilty plea had been entered after he consulted a specialist motoring firm.

As a result of their involvement a “simple and straight forward matter” turned into a high resources case for the CPS.

On the day of trial legal arguments took place when it was ruled the case should proceed on the information already before the court.

The court would rely on simply a summary of the forensic findings and there would be no further information.

Magistrates described the defence as going on a fishing expedition, said the prosecutor, and ruled the case would proceed on the material already served by the prosecution.

Collett had admitted ingesting cocaine before driving and the difficulty for him was that no expert would be able to accurately assess the metabolism of any illegal drug unless its purity was known, the prosecutor said.

Defence solicitors had a duty to advise clients of the strength of the evidence against them and advise them of the additional costs involved in taking cases to trial, said Mr Espie.

If technical defences were run, then prosecution costs spiralled.

Collett said he had a driving job and had been desperate to keep his licence.

He found M.A.J. Law on line and was told that he had a good chance of winning the case.

“I believed what I was told,” he said.

He “stupidly took it to trial” but then had to plead guilty.

Collett said he had paid the company £6,000, which was his inheritance, and which he had planned to use as a deposit to buy a property.

“I should just have pleaded guilty in the first place,” he said.

“They made me feel I was going to win this case.”

He said he was advised that the law firm had a 90 per cent success rate and that his defence was strong.

Mr Espie said he did not know how the company measures its success rate but said a significant number of the M.A.J.Law cases dealt with by the CPS locally resulted in guilty pleas.

He said defence solicitors had to act in the best interests of their clients.

It was right that they should justify the money they charged and how it equated to the amount of work they provided.

The costs involved in Collett’s case on behalf of the CPS was £960.

Probation officer Rachel Woodcock told the court that the defendant had been shocked to be over the drugs limit and had since not taken any cocaine. “He has abstained since he was charged,” she said.

He had retained his job, working in the yard rather than driving, and had no financial issues apart from the significant costs that he had paid on the present case.

After the case, Collett said he was considering taking the case to The Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority.