Scientist’s speeding conviction overturned in UK after her mother claimed she drove the car
A celebrated scientist, Sadia Khanom, 28, has had her speeding conviction quashed after her mother, a restaurateur, stepped forward as the actual driver of the luxury Porsche involved in the offense.
Khanom made headlines during the Covid-19 pandemic when she came up with a ‘revolutionary’ disinfectant spray to help curb the spread of the virus.
She made and distributed the electrically powered spray to tackle harmful pathogens in the air and on surfaces for up to two weeks.
The invention was hailed as one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of the pandemic. Following product trials with NASA and the NHS in 2021, Khanom reportedly received £10 million worth of orders.
Khanom had lived largely off the public eye until recently when she was ordered to pay £1,000 in fines and legal costs for failing to provide information when her Porsche Macan was snapped by a speed camera near her former university.
There was, however, a twist in the story when her mother, mother F’Moni Ahmed, who runs a local Indian restaurant, stepped forward with the information that she was actually the one behind the wheel during the traffic violation.
She also claimed to have received the prosecution notice at their Cheshire family home but ‘forgot’ to pass on the details.
Prosecutors accepted this explanation after Khanom informed them she had also been away for work at the time of the offence.
The mother is not likely to be prosecuted for the same offence because of the time that has elapsed since the last March’s incident.
Khanom’s solicitor, Akef Akbar, has now said that the prosecutor, Miss Val Tonkinson, had agreed to withdraw charges.
Miss Tonkinson told the hearing: ‘The defendant was not at the address at the time and was not driving the vehicle at the time of the speeding offence. She was not in the area at that time. She travels a lot for work.
‘The person who drove intended to respond but forgot. She did not give the document to her daughter. I have no reason to doubt that. I have been provided with evidence of where the defendant was at the time.
‘On that basis I will offer no evidence in respect of both offences’.
Following the hearing, Mr Akbar made a request for a ‘defendant’s costs order’ which was granted. That means her legal fees equivalent to legal aid rates will be paid from central funds.
