Tonight:
5°c
Monty wins third speed ban reprieve thanks to Mr Loophole
Rashid Razaq2 Dec 2008
Golfer Colin Montgomerie has escaped a driving ban after speeding at 70mph in a 40mph zone.
The millionaire sportsman, 45, had faced a 56-day ban after he was clocked on the A3 near Kingston.
But his solicitor Nick Freeman - dubbed Mr Loophole for his ability to get the rich and famous off traffic offences - successfully argued that Montgomerie needed his car for his career, family life and charity work.
Montgomerie was caught by a speed gun as he overtook a lorry in his Bentley in March. It is the third time in four years that Mr Freeman has helped Montgomerie escape a driving ban for speeding.
Mr Freeman told the court that his client "typically drives 55,000 miles per annum and drives extensively at home and abroad.
"When he's abroad he drives as much as possible because he hates flying."
Montgomerie had been issued with a fixed penalty notice for just £60 and three penalty points. But because of his commitments connected to tournaments abroad and his upcoming marriage he did not pay it on time. Montgomerie appeared at Feltham magistrates court having just flown in from Hong Kong.
His argument that he should be able to pay the fixed penalty notice was rejected.
Montgomerie was fined £750 and ordered to pay £85 costs.
Magistrate Jagpreet Tucker told him: "We did have the discretion to disqualify you today but we listened very carefully to Mr Freeman'srepresentations."
After the court appearance Montgomerie, of Perthshire, Scotland, refused to comment but Mr Freeman said: "We are considering our position and we have 21 days to decide."
In September last year the golfer was in court for doing 88mph on the M80 near Falkirk in his £71,000 Lexus.
Mr Freeman argued that police had failed to serve Montgomerie with a summons to Falkirk district court within the specified six months. The case was dropped.
In 2004, after Montgomerie allegedly drove at 96mph in a 70mph zone of the A3 in his £90,000 Mercedes CL600, Mr Freeman again got his client off after one of the two officers who booked the golfer failed to turn up in court.
Reader views (20)
Ross - I could equally well argue that I am entitled to break the rules as a cyclist and shoot a red light in the absence of other vehicles and pedestrians ahead, which would often increase my own safety, as a truck pulls up in the cyclist box. That I do not do so is because the rules are there for several reasons:
1. to create safe yet practical conditions.
2. to create a predictable framework for other road users
3. because the interests of the collective outweigh those of the individual late for his appointment, on the road.
You may or may not be correct about No. 1 (although I understand speed is the predominant factor in 27% of serious accidents) but this creates no entitlement to break the law based on your "common sense". It perpetuates the culture of disrespect which sees more powerful vehicles challenging the right of less powerful and more vulnerable road users to share road space.
Additionally, the point about hideously light sentencing stands. Rarely are drivers issued with more than a temporary disqualification - even a paltry fine - for causing death and debilitation, if they have not consumed alcohol. This sentence must be viewed as part of that culture.
Motorists need to remember that their road tax covers only a fraction of the cost of repairs caused by their damage to the roads, so they are receiving a massive subsidy from Joe Pedestrian. Therefore be grateful, be cautious, and drive apologetically for all the above reasons.
- Reg, London, 03/12/2008 09:26
Report abuse
Ban him for life!
- Vince London, West London, 03/12/2008 02:02
Report abuse
I have seen Freeman work at close hand, he represented a rather wll know Snooker player at a Court in the East End of London. Same old stroy as above. It's not that he is so clever at finding loop holes it's the fact that Magistrates are fearful of lawyers and their clients who are rich and famous. They have money to appeal to Higher Courts on some spurious legal question. The average Joe isn't and therefore always loses. The law states that the offender would suffer hardship if the offenbder lost his licence. Montgomery is not going to have to face any hardship.
- David K, London, 02/12/2008 20:46
Report abuse
David Trent, you are seriously misguided, try having a car drive into you at 5mph and then 50mph and explain, if you are able, why speeding isn't dangerous. Speed is a factor in almost a third of all fatal accidents. Speeding makes accidents more likely and increases the severity of the injuries, the link between speeding and deaths and crippling injuries is well established. Plus, your selfish attitude takes no account of other people. There doesn't have to be a death for speeding to be anti-social and agressive. Speeding drivers terrify pedestrians, bullies old people away from roads, intimidates cyclists and children, makes more noise, causes more pollution etc etc. We have a culture of indulgence toward speeding idiots who kill far more children every year than are killed in paedophile abductions. Grow up and juest get out of bed earlier rather than subject the rest of us to your bullying behaviour.
- Karl Meadows, London, 02/12/2008 19:32
Report abuse
I know this stretch of road well and the real problem is the speed limit. Most of the raod was 70 mph, then it was reduced to 50 mph. The 40 mph stretch is either 2 or 3 lanes of road which was designed for high speed traffic. There is a central reservation, very good visbility and no properties on the roadside. At times, it is absolutely possible to drive at 70 mph safely in the 40 mph stretch. I don't know when he was driving or what the conditions were like, but there is nothing to suggest he was driving dangerously. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that the reason the police issued him with a FPN even though he was exceeding the limit by 30 mph, was because he wasn't actually a danger to anyone.
- Ross, London, UK, 02/12/2008 18:15
Report abuse
I see the usual sanctimonious comments have accumulated. When will people get it into their heads (if indeed they haven't already) that "speeding" in itself is not dangerous? Going too fast is dangerous, and driving like an idiot is dangerous, but they are completely different to exceeding an arbitrary speed limit (and there are some ludicrous ones around these days).
I wish some people would learn to think independently and not swallow the government's anti-motorist nonsense. We've had 15 years of this obsession with the speed limit and as a result deaths have stopped falling. Time for some honesty and common sense please. If you don't like cars, or you're a control freak, please think of some other way of bullying and/or controlling motorists which doesn't involve advocating a policy which has been proven to cost lives. For goodness' sake get a sense of perspective.
- David Trent, West London, UK, 02/12/2008 17:13
Report abuse
Endless rules for the plebs, and no rules for the rich and famous; Mr Stalin would be very proud of the world that Comrade Brown has created.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 02/12/2008 17:10
Report abuse
Surely Mr Montgomerie can afford to hire a driver to get him to his career, family, and charity obligations? I work for a living and even I can manage that expense for 56 days...
- Cesar, Edinburgh, 02/12/2008 16:19
Report abuse
He doesn't 'need the car for his career'.
A multimillionaire golf professional can afford to pay to be driven around.
It is his speeding and dangerous driving that should be punished.
- Adam, HARROW, UK, 02/12/2008 15:35
Report abuse
Montgomerie was actually dealt with very leniently with by the police when originally stopped. They used their discretion to issue a FPN, for which he had ample opportunity to deal with. He failed to.
He should have been banned, not just for the offence but for clearly being an idiot.
- Md, London, UK, 02/12/2008 13:21
Report abuse
A colleague of mine tried the "I need the car for my career" gambit, and was told that he should have thought of that first. The sentence was then increased!
- Patrick Griffin, Dalston, London, 02/12/2008 13:21
Report abuse
This man is not famous(only in his own eyes), he is merely a masn who chooses not to work, but make obscene amounts of money from playing golf,(not too well).
It is a disgrace that he should be treated so lightly.
Come on the Daily Mail, get up a petition to have the law applied fairly across the board regardless of ego's.
- Anthony John Calladine, WESTON SUPERMARE. GREAT BRITAIN., 02/12/2008 13:17
Report abuse
"needed his car for his career, family life and charity work"
Don't we all? That's why we drive sensibly and consider the consequences of our actions.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 02/12/2008 12:50
Report abuse
As a person who has lost a close relative this year because of a careless driver, I can now see that the legal system is totally geared up to protect those charged with offences, there is no "justice" for the unfortunate victims of idiot drivers.
- Ab, London, 02/12/2008 12:24
Report abuse
"... needed his car for his career, family life and charity work."
That defence can be used for everybody?
I wonder what defence he would have used if he had murdered a child.
- Frank, Home Counties, England, 02/12/2008 12:06
Report abuse
He should have been banned - a non celebrity who can't afford Mr Loophole would have been banned, regardless of their loss of earnings (when a loss of earnings would have serious financial implications unlike Mr Mongomery who can afford not to earn for some time). This was the 3rd time he's been caught - which suggests that he has actually been speeding on many more occasions but got away with it. One day he will kill/seriously maim someone and no doubt Mr Loophole will get him off again.
- Andy, London, 02/12/2008 11:46
Report abuse
Surely if he depends on his car he should be intelligent enough to keep to the speed limits?
- Paul, London, 02/12/2008 11:45
Report abuse
He should have been banned.it is that simple.One rule for the rich and another for the poor.At the very least he should have had to pay a weeks wage for speeding.I GOT £500 FINE,WHEN I WAS SPEEDING!!!! He can afford a chaffeur,so if he can't drive within the parimeters of the law,he should get one.
- John Boyd, falkirk scotland, 02/12/2008 10:26
Report abuse
Just a quick note to observe that it's nothing to do with celebrity.
Drivers frequently get away with murder - or at least manslaughter - simply because the "loss of income" argument always outweighs any irresponsibility on the part of the driver, no matter how many lives this may devastate completely. Lives, not income.
The weakness of legislation, indifference of enforcers and underfunding of the CPS for road traffic incident cases proves one thing: the tradition of respect for civil liberties in this country extends only so far as protecting property and defending those who own it. Both Magna Carta and Entick -v- Carrington (celebrated human rights cases in our constitution), when read in this light, make complete sense as never before.
- Reg, London, 02/12/2008 09:46
Report abuse
One wonders if Mr Freeman would be quite so diligent in his efforts to get criminals off scot free were his own daughter to be killed by a speeding driver. Let's hope that never happens, nor that Mr Montgomery has the death of an innocent person on his conscience becauese he overslept and used the road as a racetrack.
- Dr Susan Porter, Bow, 02/12/2008 09:29
Report abuse
