Recently had a penalty procedure, where a speed limit had been accused by the court against a client stopped because of limitation period. Since the vehicle was registered in his wife as the owner, using the photos but only one male person was considered as the driver, was first introduced a driver investigations. In the course of a police officer had telephone contact with the client, and it turned out that the client is the husband of the governess. Then instructed the officer to clients dutifully on his right to refuse testimony of a spouse. The client made use of it and said nothing. Later, the police believe the husband of identified by means of a governess lodged with the passport office as a driver for photos. Against the client a penalty notice was issued because of the allegation of speeding. Appealed against our firm opposition on the grounds that in the meantime the limitation period had occurred because no proper consultation had taken place as a concerned party. The telephone consultation with the client by the police officers did not have the prescription of the offense against him effectively interrupted because the client only over his testimony had been informed right of refusal as a husband. As an eligible driver but he had to the right to refuse to be lectured him as the accused is entitled statement need. Since this instruction was under and stayed within the three-month limitation period and could not be caught, was not proven that proper consultation with the client was done, why, once the court proceedings for the limitation period.
