Ant was let off too lightly over car crash, says Mr Loophole
ANT McPartlin escaped a serious charge of dangerous driving thanks to ‘ sloppy work’ by officials, according to a lawyer known as ‘Mr Loophole’.
The presenter, 42, pleaded guilty to drink- driving, and walked free from court with an £86,000 fine and a 20-month driving ban on Monday.
But despite witnesses describing how his car ‘came round the corner like a rocket’ and smashing into two cars, he was not charged with dangerous driving.
McPartlin could have faced six months in prison if he had been charged with the offence.
Celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, known as ‘Mr Loophole’ for his record of helping celebrities avoid motoring charges, said: ‘ It’s sloppy prosecuting, it’s sloppy police work. They haven’t done their job properly.
‘ The drink driving charge relates to the excess alcohol. But this guy went round a corner, lost control of his car and collided with two other vehicles, both of which were carrying children. He hit one car and then collided with another and that, in any view, is dangerous driving.’
The motoring lawyer went on to suggest McPartlin should have been tested for banned substances as well.
‘I watched video of the aftermath and McPartlin looked out of it, almost comatose’, Mr Freeman said.
‘I don’t know why the police didn’t test him for other substances. Did they conduct all the tests they should’ve done?’
Last year, McPartlin checked into a rehab clinic for addictions to prescription drugs and alcohol. The presenter became hooked on the Class C opiatebased painkiller tramadol after a botched knee operation left him in ‘agony’.
The TV presenter crashed his Mini in Richmond, South-West London on March 18.
If he had been found guilty of dangerous driving at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court the maximum penalty would have been six months in prison or an unlimited fine, or both.
The Crown Prosecution Service advises the police on cases for possible prosecution and reviews the cases before bringing them to court.
A CPS spokesman said: ‘This case was originally charged by the police. The CPS subsequently reviewed the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and agreed that the charging decision was appropriate.’