An IT consultant spent 16 hours in a police cell and four months unable to drive after a clerical error wrongly identified him as a disqualified driver. Andrew Lees, 47, faced the prospect of jail when police checks indicated he had been banned from the roads, but the driving offenses triggering the disqualification did not belong to him.
Mr. Lees first became aware of the issue in November 2025 when he received a letter from the DVLA stating he had been banned from driving by Carlisle Magistrates' Court after accumulating 19 penalty points. The ban was imposed under the Single Justice Procedure, a process where magistrates handle minor motoring offenses in fast-track, closed-door hearings without legal representation. Although the case was handled in Carlisle, the offenses were believed to have been committed by another driver in Greater Manchester.
Despite repeatedly attempting to resolve the error himself through contact with the DVLA, the Cumbrian Magistrates' Court, and the Single Justice Service, Mr. Lees was unable to obtain a clear response or identify the court file responsible for the incorrect information. Believing the issue to be a simple administrative mistake, he continued to drive.
His situation escalated in February when he was stopped by police. Because official records incorrectly showed him as disqualified, officers arrested him and held him for 16 hours. Mr. Lees described the experience as terrifying, stating that officers were unwilling to listen to his explanations. He was held in custody eight miles from his home, facing potential jail time for an offense he did not commit. While in the cells, he reported receiving only instant noodles for meals.
Following his release on bail, Mr. Lees was given a court date in June and was unable to drive for the intervening four months. This significantly impacted his family life, preventing him from performing everyday tasks such as taking his daughters, aged nine and five, to school, extracurricular activities, and birthday parties.
The family hired criminal defense specialists Olliers Solicitors, whose motoring solicitor, Austin Anderson-Brettell, investigated the case. Mr. Anderson-Brettell discovered that offenses committed by another individual had been mistakenly assigned to Mr. Lees’ driving license number. Despite this evidence being presented to the Crown Prosecution Service, the case was not immediately dropped.
Mr. Anderson-Brettell criticized the handling of the situation, stating that it should not have required legal intervention to rectify such a clear error. He noted that numerous opportunities existed for the court, police, or prosecution to correct the mistake and prevent Mr. Lees' ordeal and the waste of taxpayer money.
Following further representations from Olliers, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the case the day before it was scheduled to be heard. Mr. Lees expressed immense relief and immediately took two days off work to drive freely, traveling to Wales and Scotland.
Mr. Anderson-Brettell has called for reforms to the Single Justice Procedure, highlighting its lack of transparency and the risk of undermining public confidence. He expressed concerns that the closed-door process can lead to convictions without meaningful defendant engagement, potentially overlooking important mitigating factors or failing to adequately consider vulnerable individuals. He warned that without addressing these flaws, the system risks continuing to produce avoidable mistakes and injustices, eroding confidence in the legal process.
Despite the resolution of the driving offense case, Mr. Lees' wife's car remained impounded by Greater Manchester Police. The Crown Prosecution Service stated that the accusations were of a category where police could authorize charges without prior consultation, and it was only upon review the day before the court appearance that the prosecution decided to discontinue the matter.