Driven By Excellence, your trusted place for all things logistics and road safety.
Hattie Hlad: In this episode, we delve into the crucial role of legal
support in high stakes situations.
I'm your host Hattie, and today we're discussing the crucial impact of
having 24/7 legal roadside support when involved in road traffic collisions.
To explore this, we're joined by Charlotte Le Maire, a seasoned barrister
and the driving force behind LMP Legal, a firm that specialises in providing
immediate legal assistance to drivers in their most vulnerable moments.
Charlotte, it's great to have you on the show.
You have an impressive background in legal practice, particularly in road
traffic law and crisis management.
Can you start by telling us a bit about your journey and your expertise
and what led you to create LMP Legal?
Charlotte Le Maire: Well, that is a loaded question and probably one that is
going to take a little bit of answering.
So, I started out at a big international law firm and following qualifying as a
barrister and I think I'd always wanted to work within criminal law in some capacity.
But I think as I ventured into law, I realised there were lots of difficulties
with legal aid and bits and pieces in terms of actually managing to make a
career out of it and I think naturally I fell into doing some insurance type
work to begin with at an international law firm and within that, we started
to get some work through from insurers relating to road traffic collisions, but
actually criminal road traffic collisions.
So people who hadn't just been injured and wanting compensation for injuries.
It was actually to represent defendants where they're being charged with, some
of the more serious road traffic offenses and I've developed real interest in that
because for me it was a way of doing criminal law without having to really
start at the bottom and do a lot of the legal aid work and so I naturally
fell into that and almost created the department within that law firm.
The LMP legal story is another question.
So I worked at that firm for a long number of years, almost 14 years,
became the head of department there.
and was very happy there.
We had a great team, built a great team around me.
But what I'd realised was that we were picking these cases up, as
I've said, from the insurers of say, whatever company they were insuring,
when the collisions had occurred.
But actually, more often than not, two, three, four months down the line,
not actually when the collision had
Hattie Hlad: Really, wow.
Charlotte Le Maire: And what we were finding was that as a result of that,
drivers were incriminating themselves.
at the scene of a collision or at the initial police station.
So on the day, on the evening, on the day after, where we hadn't
had those instructions and I felt as though there was a real gap in
terms of being able to provide the crisis response part of the service.
so much so that it was affecting the case as hugely that we were doing, you
know, drivers were going to prison as a result and I decided that, that gap
needed filling and, LMP Legal was born.
Hattie Hlad: Amazing.
So, thank you for that insight.
Let's dive into the core of today's discussion, how immediate
legal support can make a difference in road traffic cases.
I understand that you brought two case studies that really
highlight the contrasting outcomes of drivers who have had legal
support and for those who didn't.
Could you start by telling us about the case of Abbie Thornton?
Charlotte Le Maire: Yeah, so Abby's case, was actually a case that I came across
a lot in my previous life, as in this was one of the cases where she didn't
have the immediate legal assistance.
So she was involved in a really serious road traffic collision, there were
very severe injuries as a result, and unfortunately, the police attended the
scene as they always do, immediately following, and asked, what's happened,
straight away, what's happened?
Can you tell us what's happened?
And Abby spoke at the scene not really knowing what happened.
So, she made guesses about speed, about blinding sun, admitting that
she drove dangerously when asked the question straight in a police
interview, which they often would.
She wouldn't have a clue what driving dangerously actually was
defined as, she wouldn't know that.
I think an ordinary person wouldn't necessarily know that.
She was very suggestible and she agreed with the police and as
a result, the police were able to build a case against her.
We got involved later, but unfortunately, it is very difficult to peel back damage
that has been done at the roadside or initial police station because you
have to put yourself in the position of being sat on a jury and you have to ask
yourself, if you had an account that had been given to a police officer at
the scene, immediately after something has happened, you would think that
was the truth of what has happened, which isn't necessarily the case.
We know as lawyers, we know as people who deal with these things day in, day
out, that necessarily isn't the case.
But as a juror, I think it's very, very difficult to discount that...
Hattie Hlad: Absolutely.
Charlotte Le Maire: Later down the line.
Hattie Hlad: It obviously sounds like Abby's way to handle the situation
on her own had serious repercussions.
What are some of the crucial mistakes she made during the police questioning?
You mentioned that, but what could she have avoided in that
case if she had your support?
Charlotte Le Maire: Well, she wouldn't have been admitting
dangerous driving for a start.
In terms of the blinding sun, there was potentially a defense with the
blinding sun, but what she did was she admitted to driving blind for a number
of seconds, rather than the blinding sun could be proven with expert input that
we would have instructed an expert and had all of that reconstructed properly.
But actually that was very momentary.
So a momentary lapse of attention or concentration is fits squarely into
careless driving at worst and not dangerous driving and of course, careless
driving, certainly back then, when there was no new offence of causing
serious injury by careless driving, does not carry a prison sentence and
therefore, she went to prison where she may well have avoided that completely.
Hattie Hlad: Wow, that's really unfortunate.
You mentioned by the time Abby engaged with LMP Legal, it was too
late to recover crucial evidence.
Could you elaborate on what evidence or witness testimony
might have helped her case if you had been involved from the start?
Charlotte Le Maire: Well, if a driver calls our crisis response
line immediately, not only are we getting the response line, initial
contact with them and speaking to them about what might have happened.
We're also gaining potential witness details that might have
been there that may be able to help their case, or certainly shine a
light on what might have happened.
We're also able to speak to the police to engage with those immediate details,
immediate witnesses that they may not take statements from because they
may not be helpful, or they may just not have done it for whatever reason,
we can follow up on those inquiries.
But also, what we can do is we make sure that we're on equal footing with
the police and by that, I mean that we always reconstruct a collision.
So we always examine vehicles involved at the time.
A specialist reconstruction expert can gain all sorts from taking material and
data from the scene, getting the police data that they collect from the scene,
and they reconstruct the entire collision.
So we can get details of speeds, of throw distance, where it involves bikes,
of the position of the sun in the sky.
There's all sorts of things that we can gather.
But if we lose that initial opportunity to do that, as in if we're not instructed
and we come in a month down the line, two months down the line, the vehicles could
have been released, repaired, evidence has gone and what that means is that,
yes, the police will have examined it.
But I can't tell you how many times we've been in court where our experts disagreed
with police findings and actually haven't examined things themselves physically.
They've been in a position to be able to challenge it.
Hattie Hlad: That's so interesting.
So let's talk about LMP Legal.
What's it look like?
What services do you provide?
What's your role within the company?
Charlotte Le Maire: So I'm the founder of LMP legal and essentially it
is a specialist criminal law firm.
So we do all kinds of crime, but we have a specialist focus on road regulatory.
It was set up, as I said, to cover a gap in the market in terms of
providing a 24/7, 365 day a year crisis response service to our clients.
So that is any of our clients who are involved in a road traffic
collision that is police attended.
So it doesn't have to be a fatal collision.
It can be any kind of injury or collision where the police are in attendance.
They have a 24/7 phone number to phone, which gets through to one of our lawyers.
We have a setup that is national, so it gets through to one of our lawyers,
we cover the country nationally and we are able to provide not only telephone
advice at the roadside, but then that triggers a lawyer to go and attend, if
need be, at the initial police station.
So essentially, it provides complete cover and protection for drivers and
of course, it follows the employers of any of those drivers, because more and
more we're finding that a road traffic collision isn't just a driver's problem.
Yes, drivers are prosecuted, but increasingly so are managers, directors
and companies and therefore, when we dispatch to protect the driver's
position, we're of course protecting the company's position in addition to that.
So it's a specialist niche service that isn't offered anywhere else.
That's something that we pride ourselves on doing because it's
something that I realised really needed to be done, which is why the
company was set up in the first place.
Hattie Hlad: Amazing.
It's clear how pivotal early intervention can be.
Let's shift on to the second case study, which had a very different outcome.
This one involves Marcus Harris, who did have the benefit of LMP's
legal 24/7 roadside support.
Can you walk us through what happened in Marcus's case?
Charlotte Le Maire: Yeah, so Marcus unfortunately struck a cyclist.
It was a very serious collision and the cyclist had very severe injuries.
I think that the insurers placed a reserve of something in the
region of 13 million pounds.
So it was a really, really serious case.
Marcus phoned the line immediately without providing any account to the police, which
is exactly what we tell drivers to do.
So just to run through it again, I'm sure people have heard me up and down
the country saying this, but the things you must provide to the police are your
personal details, so name, address, date of birth and to confirm the vehicle that
you're driving, which is what Marcus did and then he called our number.
That then prevented Marcus from making any admissions at the scene.
So, admissions that he might have made, such as he was tired and
hadn't slept well the night before, which immediately would have got him
into dangerous driving territory.
He didn't say those things.
He didn't make guesses about how long he was sat at junction before pulling out, or
how far away the cyclist was, or guesses about speed, because often we tend to
find things unravel when drivers do that.
They get it wrong, not because they're lying, just because they get it wrong.
We attended, we provided a pre prepared statement, which is how we would
always deal with a police interview, or very usually deal with a police
interview, where we take the driver's instructions very clearly, and then we
set out in a statement what happened, but protecting their position.
So essentially reserving our position until we instructed an expert.
An expert was ultimately instructed because as I've mentioned previously, when
you do that straight away you're able to put yourselves on equal footing with the
police and their reconstruction experts.
The expert in that case essentially provided Marcus with a really good
defence, in terms of the cyclists being obscured by street furniture, by
conspicuity arguments in terms of clothing and blending into the road, there were
lots of different technical arguments that the expert put across and as a
result of that, We did go all the way to court and we managed to defend it and
Marcus was not convicted of anything.
Had Marcus spoken at the scene, I think things would have been very different
and of course, as a result, the insurers are able to defend the case or absolute
worst, they're able to settle, but they settle on the basis of a very high degree
of contribution negligence and that of course, then has a, an impact financially
in the company in terms of their premiums.
So all in all, it was a much better results because you are controlling
things from the moment that the collision occurs rather than trying to backpedal
two, three, four months down the line.
Hattie Hlad: It's striking to hear how Marcus's situation was handled
so differently from the outset.
What were some key actions that were taken by your team that protected Marcus's
rights and set the stage for his defence?
Charlotte Le Maire: Essentially, attending, ensuring he doesn't speak,
ensuring we do the prepared statements, to protect his position, to make sure he's
not making any admissions he doesn't need to needlessly make and then instruction
of appropriate experts, analysing that evidence, advising him properly,
because clearly, where a driver may be criminally liable, it is in their best
interest to admit that earlier, and there are cases where that does happen
in order to protect them from a higher sentence than they maybe otherwise would
get if they don't plead guilty earlier.
So it's in terms of assessing it.
It gives us the benefit of being able to assess it properly where we've been
involved from the beginning, and to give them the proper advice because
this, yes for companies and for insurers can be very much financial, but for
the person involved, it's personal.
Hattie Hlad: Yeah.
Charlotte Le Maire: This is affecting them, their livelihoods, their
family, their driving license.
So it's serious repercussions if we don't get that right and attending earlier and
being able to have all of these things at our disposal means that we can be
in a position to advise them properly.
Hattie Hlad: It's really insightful, obviously you've mentioned a few
things that you've done, but I understand that forensic analysis
played a part in Marcus's defense.
Could you tell us a little bit more about the expert testimony and evidence
that was used to support his case?
Charlotte Le Maire: I think critically for this one, it was the analysis of where the
cyclist was when Marcus made the decision to pull out of the junction because they
can assess that speed and throw distance as I was talking about earlier, in terms
of placing where he would have been and how visible he would have been that
together with what he was wearing and how he blended in and the conspicuity points,
I think were the swinging factors in terms of the jury because they couldn't
be sure that Marcus could have seen him by the time he came into view and made a
decision to pull out that it was already too late, with the cyclist's speed and I
think that was really critical in terms of the not guilty verdict in the end.
Hattie Hlad: That's really impressive.
It's obviously very fascinating that the right legal strategy and expert
involvement can turn a case around.
So looking at both of these cases, it's clear that immediate legal intervention
can make a massive difference.
From your perspective, what's the most important takeaways for our
listeners when it comes to taking legal support after an accident?
Charlotte Le Maire: I would always say nobody, even me, who's a lawyer who
knows what happens at the roadside, nobody should ever give an account to
the police in relation to any criminal offence, be that road traffic or any
other, you should not walk into a police station without representation
or provide any account at the scene.
You generally are not in this situation, people are generally not in this
situation every day, every week or every year, hopefully never or once in
a lifetime and you don't know how to deal with this, people are vulnerable,
you're in shock when this happens, you're not thinking even as straight
as you and I having this conversation.
You do need to have legal advice, it's critical that you have that legal advice
and legal support from the beginning because you don't know the things that
you might be saying that you think might be reasons for a collision occurring
are actually playing straight into the prosecution's hands and therefore
obtaining advice immediately before you say anything, that includes to any
witnesses, any speculation at all at the scene, could literally be the difference
between you being charged and convicted with something, or not charged at all,
or if you are acquitted of it at the end.
It is as absolutely as simple as that and actually, there isn't a driver in the
country that doesn't need this service.
It's just being able to, get to the point where we're able to offer that service to
everybody and to ensure that everybody's aware that is something that they need.
Hattie Hlad: Absolutely.
So you just mentioned that really for anyone you shouldn't answer questions
at the scene beyond personal details.
But with how policing has adapted over the years and with the
introduction of PACE, why are drivers being questioned at the roadside?
Charlotte Le Maire: It's a very good question.
For normal criminal offences.
So let's give an example.
If I stabbed you now, which I'm not going to do, you'll be pleased to know,
then the police would come down here, they would read me my rights, they would
arrest me, they would offer me a lawyer, they would take me to the police station
and that is where I will be interviewed.
At a roadside unfortunately, it's very different.
We don't really know why that's the case, but they come to the scene, and
yes, they will caution a driver, not that a driver will even remember that
happening at the time, and because they're at the scene of a road traffic
collision and not a stereotypical criminal offense or criminal act,
essentially, what they will say is, can you just tell me briefly what happened?
Road traffic offences are a strange one because although they absolutely
are potential criminal offences and more and more so as new legislation
has been introduced, of course, they're not deliberate, there's no
element of anything being deliberate.
When somebody attacks somebody or stabs somebody or shoots somebody, they
know they've done it immediately, they might even know why they've done it.
For a driver, a lot of people don't actually even know that they can be in
trouble for something like that, that it is an offence or potentially an offence.
So they'll speak to the police straight away because they're not career
criminals, they don't know their rights, and they also don't see the problem in
doing so because what they will think is, well, why would I need a lawyer?
I haven't done anything on purpose, therefore nothing can happen to me.
If I did have a lawyer, it would make me look guilty and if I had a pound for
every time I'd heard that, I would be sat somewhere a lot sunnier at the moment.
So, what tends to happen is that the police will ask the question almost
innocuously, and a driver will answer if they haven't had the proper advice.
Whereas if the police ask that of any other person at any other crime
scene, where there is a bit more deliberate element, you tend to find
people like that know exactly where their rights are and know exactly
when they should and shouldn't answer.
So I think it's a habit that has developed over time and they, the police, like
to do it and they like to do it at the scene because there isn't a lawyer there
and the nicer and the more open they can be with the driver, the more open they
know the driver will be back with them and frankly, they know they're going
to get admissions or things said that will be helpful to them and therefore
they persist in doing this and I think that is a very dangerous loophole that
we're trying to work on closing, but it's definitely a work in progress.
Hattie Hlad: Absolutely, Charlotte thank you for that and for breaking
down the cases for us today.
It really underscores the importance of having expert legal
support right from the start.
For our listeners, if you ever find yourself in this situation where you
want are involved in a road traffic accident, remember how crucial it is
to have someone like Charlotte and her team at LMP Legal in your corner.
Before we wrap up, Charlotte, where can our listeners learn more about
LMP Legal and the services you offer?
Charlotte Le Maire: Well, they can go to our website.
We do have a page dedicated to crisis response where they can
learn about why it's important and what the services that we offer.
We're on LinkedIn and also they can feel free to reach out to me or anyone of
the team if they need to and of course we're partnered with PDT, so they can
also reach out, to you guys at PDT if they would like to know a little bit more
about the services that we offer and how we offer them in conjunction with you.
Hattie Hlad: Amazing, thank you so much!
Charlotte, thank you for breaking down these cases for us today.
It really underscores the importance of having expert legal
support right from the start.
For our listeners, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you're
involved in a road traffic accident, remember how critical it is to
have someone like Charlotte and her team at LMP Legal in your corner.
If you found today's discussion helpful, please subscribe and leave a review.
Share this episode with others who might benefit from this vital information and
until next time, stay safe and take care.
Thanks for tuning into this episode of Driven By Excellence.
We hope you enjoyed listening and if you did, please don't forget to click
that follow button, leave us a review or share this episode with a colleague.
For more information and to keep up to date with industry news, head to
our website pdtfleettrainingsolutions.
co.
uk