Paddy McGuinness escapes a driving ban despite pleading guilty thanks to Nick Freeman (otherwise known as ‘Mr Loophole’) taking on his case.

Motorists are finding inspiration from high-profile cases where celebrities have engaged Nick Freeman for his ability to find loopholes in badly drafted legislation and sloppy administration errors.

This has become known as the Mr Loophole effect. Nick Freeman has published a book to shine a spotlight on the techniques he uses.



Paddy McGuinness was caught doing 53mph in a 40mph zone in August 2016. He originally admitted a charge of failing to provide information on who was driving and was given 6 penalty points – triggering a ban as he already had 6 points on his licence.

Mr Freeman – known as ‘Mr Loophole’ due to his ability to help clients escape driving convictions – argued McGuinness was never sent the relevant paperwork.


The paperwork in question is usually sent by second class post. This means that there is no automatic presumption of delivery so it can easily be argued that (he) never received it.

The court heard McGuinness had moved house 3 times in the last 2 years. He had not received a notice of intended prosecution (NIP) or a reminder, although he was the registered owner of the vehicle.

Mr Freeman said at the time of the offence, McGuinness had been having work done on his car so asked for the speed camera photograph to be sent to him – but he never received it.

The lawyer told magistrates the prosecution had failed to provide any documents or evidence to the defence and had failed in its legal duties. The onus was on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prove their case beforehand and on the day and they literally turned up empty-handed.

Speaking afterwards, Mr Freeman said: “Mr McGuinness did not receive the notice of intended prosecution, nor the reminder, that were both allegedly sent to his home address”.


The key points here are to always ask for the speed camera photograph.

All paperwork is usually sent by second class post meaning that there is no automatic presumption of delivery.

Compliance with The Road Traffic Act cuts both ways.

I have successfully cancelled Court proceedings for an alleged speeding offence by referring to a landmark ruling that went all the way to the High Court. One motorist literally took a leaf out of my book to beat a speeding fine on temporary roadworks.

Have you been able to cancel a speeding ticket on a technicality? Would you do so even if you were (allegedly) in the wrong?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!