R v G (Sheffield Crown Court)
Instructed in this appeal against sentence case. Client previously disqualified pursuant to the 'totting up' provisions. Appeal allowed as 'exceptional hardship' was found.
R v W (Brighton Magistrates' Court)
Instructed in this careless driving case. Client accused of accelerating hard out of a junction and veering into the path of an oncoming car. Abuse of process argument sent to Crown Prosecution Service. Case discontinued prior to trial.
R v D (Chester Crown Court)
Instructed in this appeal against conviction case. Client previously represented himself and had been found guilty of failing to give driver details. Appeal allowed.
R v A (Uxbridge Magistrates Court)
Instructed in this speeding case. Client was accused of driving at 113 mph in his Ferrari California. Case defended on the basis that proceedings were not instituted properly by the Metropolitan Police using the Single Justice Procedure. Written representations made to the CPS London Traffic Unit, who discontinued proceedings prior to trial.
R v J (Nottingham Crown Court)
Instructed in this appeal against sentence case. In the lower court, the appellant had unsuccessfully argued against a ‘totting up’ disqualification. Appeal allowed on an ‘exceptional hardship’ basis where new circumstances were found to exist in this second application within three years.
R v H (Chippenham Magistrates Court)
Instructed in this speeding case by a leading road transport solicitor - with assistance from laser technology expert, Dr Michael Clark. Defendant was accused of driving at 115 mph on a motorway. Basis of plea agreed and licence endorsed with 4 penalty points.
R v Backhouse & others (York Crown Court & Court of Appeal)
Instructed by all four defendants in a three-week trial at York Crown Court. All defendants were found 'not guilty' of causing death by dangerous driving and the alternative dangerous driving charge, but convicted of a separate dangerous driving count. Appeared for all four appellants at the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the subsequent appeals against sentence. This case is a leading authority on the "purposes of disqualification"; see Needham & others  EWCA Crim 455 at para 17.