R v D (York Crown Court) March 2024
Instructed on a Direct Access basis in this speeding case. Defendant argued ‘exceptional hardship’ but was disqualified at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court. Disqualification suspended pending appeal. Appeal against sentence allowed. Defendant therefore avoided a ‘totting up’ disqualification.
R v V (Lincoln Crown Court) February 2024
Instructed by Chattertons Solicitors in this dangerous driving case. It was alleged that the defendant performed a motorcycle wheelie at 97 mph. Complex issues regarding admissibility of evidence (four expert witnesses, late service of evidence, bad character of an expert witness). Prosecution offered no evidence in the week before the trial hearing when the defendant pleaded guilty to a less serious offence (careless driving).
R v C (Magistrates Court) January 2024
Instructed on a Direct Access basis in this drink driving case (40ug in breath). On the day of trial, the prosecution indicated that no evidence would be offered if the defendant pleaded guilty to a less serious offence (drunk in charge). Plea in mitigation. District Judge imposed 10 penalty points and the defendant was not disqualified from driving.
R v P (Grimsby Magistrates Court) December 2023
Instructed by Chattertons Solicitors in this causing death by careless driving case. Instructed to advise at the police station stage (prepared statement) and to appear in the subsequent court proceedings. Basis of plea drafted. Sentencing Note drafted. Contested venue submissions argued before a District Judge. Defendant made subject to a suspended sentence order and the mandatory minimum disqualification period.
R v J (Liverpool Crown Court) November 2023
Instructed by RK Law Solicitors in this appeal against sentence case. Appeal concerned ‘exceptional hardship’ and totality of sentence (four speeding offences). Appeal allowed. Fine and costs reduced by £1299. Defendant avoided a ‘totting up’ disqualification.
R v B (Wirral Magistrates Court) October 2023
Instructed on a Direct Access basis in these failure to give driver information cases. Defendant charged with three separate offences, two trials listed. Prosecution offered no evidence to all offences on the day of trial. Defendant avoided a ‘totting up’ disqualification. Costs from central funds awarded.
R v S (York Magistrates Court) July 2023
Instructed on a Direct Access basis in this drink driving case (82ug in breath). Defendant argued post-driving consumption of alcohol (the so-called hip-flask defence). Defendant found not guilty after trial. Costs awarded from central funds.
R v S (Taunton Crown Court) June 2023
Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this causing death by careless driving case. Guilty plea entered at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing. Sentencing Note drafted. Defendant made subject to a suspended sentence order and the mandatory minimum disqualification period.
R v M (Cardiff Crown Court) April 2023
Instructed by JMW Solicitors in this dangerous driving case. Defendant relied upon duress as a defence. Defendant found not guilty after trial but convicted of careless driving - which he admitted at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing. Penalty points imposed and the defendant was not disqualified from driving.
R v M (York Crown Court) March 2023
Instructed on a Direct Access basis in this contested speeding case. Technical challenge to the institution of proceedings via the Single Justice Procedure. Convicted after trial at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court. Grounds of appeal against conviction drafted. On the day of the appeal hearing the prosecution indicated that they would not oppose the appeal. Appeal allowed and costs awarded from central funds (both courts).
R v S (Chelmsford Crown Court) June 2022
Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this causing death by dangerous driving case. The prosecution alleged that defendant drove at twice the speed limit in appalling weather conditions, lost control of his vehicle and caused the death of his partner. Complex issues of causation and video analysis to resolve with expert evidence. Guilty plea entered at the earliest opportunity. The sentencing judge imposed a two-year suspended sentence order indicating that it was “a very rare case in which it is appropriate to suspend the sentence in a death by dangerous driving case. A very rare case indeed.”
REPORTED CASES
R v Burke [2019] EWCA Crim 928, [2020] RTR 15
Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this high profile appeal against sentence reported in the Road Traffic Reports. The appellant admitted doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice - by using a laser jammer to avoid penalty points. At York Crown Court, with different representation, he was sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment. The prosecution made a prevalence submission, which was apparently accepted by the sentencing judge. The Court of Appeal said that there was no supporting evidence to justify the suggestion of prevalence locally which required the court to send a message out to others using devices of this kind. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a suspended sentence for an immediate custodial sentence. Commentary on this important sentencing case is in Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences 31st edition at 6-105 and 6-106.
R v Pledge [2019] EWCA Crim 912, [2019] 4 WLR 110, [2019] 6 WLUK 39, [2019] RTR 38
Instructed in the trial and subsequent appeal against conviction proceedings reported in the Weekly Law Reports and Road Traffic Reports with commentary in Archbold Criminal Pleading and Practice 2024 at 32-211 and Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences 31st edition at 2-220. This is a rare example of an appeal against conviction heard at the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in which counsel was instructed on a Direct Access basis. Leave to appeal against conviction was granted by the Single Judge. The appeal issue was whether the bar to conviction in section 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was applicable because the address of the Registered Keeper was not ascertained within 14 days. A police civilian employee observed a dangerous driving offence and later made a telephone call to the driver. The same employee found an address via a Google search for the company, which was close to where the alleged offence took place. A notice of intended prosecution was sent to the wrong address, in a distant place, being that (wrongly) recorded on the DVLA database. The Court of Appeal held that the Recorder was entitled to conclude that the police acted with reasonable diligence. A police employee gave evidence that it was not unusual for the registered address of a vehicle to be located somewhere not automatically associated with the keeper. It was held to be unnecessary for him to have sent copies of the notice on a speculative basis to the address shown on the company website and that knowledge of a different address on a website did not materially raise the possibility that the DVLA address was wrong.
R v Backhouse and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1111
Instructed by all four defendants in this three-week trial at York Crown Court and in the subsequent appeal proceedings. All defendants were found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and an alternative dangerous driving charge, but convicted of an antecedent dangerous driving offence concerning a 145 mile journey. The prosecution alleged that the defendants had driven powerful motorcycles at very high speeds on country roads (a police officer replicating the route reached 100 mph but could not match the time achieved by the defendants). Leave to appeal against sentence granted - submissions limited to the disqualification order imposed. This case is a leading Court of Appeal authority on “the purposes of disqualification from driving”; see Archbold Criminal Pleading and Practice 2024 at 5A-468, 5A-550 and Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences 31st edition at 5-230, 5-231 and 20-26. It was said by Mr Justice Treacy (as he then was) that “an order of disqualification has the purpose of protecting the public … disqualification is also intended to punish and deter offenders and others. A balance, however, has to be struck and the court should not disqualify for a period which is longer than necessary and should bear in mind the effect of a ban on employment or employment prospects.” This case received positive judicial consideration in R v Needham and others [2016] EWCA Crim 455.