Dalia Al-Bayatti – Solicitor and Deputy Head of Motoring Law Department

Dalia is a Solicitor and Deputy Head of the Motoring Department. Dalia has extensive experience in all types of motoring cases including all drink related offences, driving without due care and attention, driving without insurance, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, speeding and failing to provide driver details.

Recently Dalia was involved in the case of R (on the application of Jenkins) v Hammersmith Magistrates Court [2015] successful judicial review of Hammersmith Magistrates Court, regarding the prosecution’s application to vacate trial to secure a prosecution witnesses attendance.

Significant Cases

Dalia deals with all cases but not every one can be listed or explained. However, if your case does not fall in any of the below, then contact Caddick Davies and no doubt we will be in a position to assist

  1. R (on application of Jenkins) v Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court [2015] – Judicial review in which the defendant’s case in the High Court – Result- High Court Acquitted Defendant of Charge and quashed the Court’s decision to adjourn trial
  2. R v EP Great Yarmouth Magistrates Court Failing to provide a breath specimen – client was acquitted of the charge as she was physically unable to provide a breath specimen having suffered a panic attack at the police station and was concerned for the welfare of her child – Result – Not Guilty after Trial
  3. R v A Reading Magistrates Court Failing to provide a breath specimen – Clients case discontinued before trial as he was physically unable to provide a breath specimen owing to his condition of Atrial Fibrillation Result – Case Discontinued
  4. R v PG Birmingham Magistrates Court Drink Driving – Prosecution offered no evidence as they were unable to prove that the statutory warning as stipulated in section 7 (7) RTA 1988 was provided to the client – Result – Crown offer no evidence
  5. R v JH Cheltenham Magistrates Court Drink Driving – client acquitted following trial having proved on the balance of probabilities that he consumed alcohol after driving but before providing an evidential breath specimen (Hip Flask Defence – Result – Not Guilty after Trial
  6. R v PF Nottingham Magistrates Court Drink Driving- Client took issue with the evidence of the breath specimen and wished to make application to exclude this evidence under section 78 PACE 1984. This was on the basis that the client wished to provide a secondary specimen of blood and subsequently urine in accordance with his right to do so under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the law has now changed on this point), however he had been effectively denied this opportunity. The client asserted that the nurse attending had been unable to take a specimen of blood and the client has been unable to provide a specimen of urine as the police officer had allowed him to go to the toilet in advance of the procedure-taking place. Result – Crown offer no evidence
  7. R v BA Highbury Corner Magistrates Court Drink Driving- The prosecution offered no evidence to the offence of drink driving owing to their failure to serve requested disclosure Result – Crown offer no evidence
  8. R v RB Wirral Magistrates Court Driving without insurance – Successful application for “special reasons” on the basis that client held a genuine and honest belief, founded on reasonable grounds that she was insured to use the vehicle. This client was told by her boyfriend’s mother she would be insured to use the vehicle and obtained a favourable report from the Financial Services Ombudsman, which stated that her policy was cancelled owing to an error in uploading documents required to formalise the insurance. The policyholder had no way of checking. Result – Absolute Discharge, No fine or points imposed for the offence.
  9. R v AG Hull Magistrates Court Failing to provide driver information – Client was acquitted following trial on the basis that she could not provide information as to the identity of the driver of her vehicle as she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain the identity of the driver of her vehicle (section 172 (4) RTA 1988). Client allowed family to use her vehicle and provided evidence as to the enquiries she made in seeking to identify the driver with 4 family members who all had access to the vehicle – Result – Not Guilty after Trial
  10. R v TA Camberwell Green Magistrates Court Being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink – Client advised to defend the allegation on the basis that he was not in charge of the vehicle as he was sitting on the vehicle keys and that these were not in his hand or pocket. Furthermore, the client stated that he always parked in the location and intended to walk home, therefore there was no likelihood of the client driving whilst unfit through drink – Result – Not Guilty after Trial
  11. R v MU Thames Magistrates Court Driving whilst unfit through drink – Client advised to defend this allegation on the basis that he disputed that his ability to drive was impaired and that he was unfit to drive through drink – Result – Case Withdrawn by Crown
  12. R v H Mold Magistrates Court speeding – client avoided 6 month disqualification from driving on the sole basis that the lady’s children were training in gymnastics from a young age and should she lose her licence, all the time and effort the children have put in to ensure their success will be effected – Result – Disqualification avoided “Exceptional Hardship Successful”

Like and Hobbies

In her spare time Dalia loves movies, video games and spending quality time with her pets.

Dalia’s Comments

“I really enjoy researching the law and working with clients to ensure their case is thoroughly prepared and thereafter hearing how delighted a client is with the positive outcome achieved”.