R v S (Bradford Crown Court)
Instructed in this dangerous driving case. The prosecution alleged that S drove his car around a corner whilst a person was positioned on the front bonnet of the car. The ‘passenger’ fell off the bonnet and was rendered unconscious as a result of hitting his head on the ground. S denied that his driving was more than careless. The case was committed for trial to the Crown Court and negotiations were entered into with the prosecuting authority. The prosecution agreed to discontinue proceedings for dangerous driving following a guilty plea to careless driving. Three penalty points were endorsed with a very small fine.
R v K (Lewes Crown Court)
Instructed in this death by dangerous driving case. The prosecution alleged that K was racing another vehicle - both cars driven at over 100 mph only one second apart. The driver of the lead car lost control of his vehicle, crashed and sadly, a passenger lost his life. K denied that his driving was more than a minimal cause of death. Not guilty verdict to causing death by dangerous driving but convicted of a far less serious offence after a 7 day trial.
R v P (Carlisle Magistrates’ Court)
Instructed in this speeding case. The prosecution alleged that the defendant drove at a measured 145 mph and “in excess of 150 mph” whilst being followed by a police car over a distance of 25 miles. Full facts admitted. 56 day disqualification. £120 fine.
R v P (Bradford Crown Court)
Instructed in this perverting the course of justice case. The prosecution alleged that the defendant used a laser jammer device on two separate occasions in two different vehicles - preventing speed checks to be made. Defendant found not guilty of both counts after a three day trial.
R v L (Staines Magistrates' Court)
Instructed in this speeding case. At trial before a district judge, the prosecution were put to proof that proceedings were instituted properly by Thames Valley police using the Single Justice Procedure. Prosecutor offered no evidence at half-time and the case was dismissed.
R v O (Lincoln Crown Court)
Instructed in this appeal against conviction case. In the lower court, the defendant, of previous good character, was convicted of an assault arising from a “road rage” incident. The defendant’s appeal against conviction was allowed.
R v F (Leamington Spa Magistrates' Court)
Instructed in this speeding and careless driving case. At trial, a police officer testified that the defendant drove his Porsche at 130 mph, drove erratically, tailgated and undertook a vehicle. Case dismissed following a submission of no case to answer.
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 high profile careless driving case. Client accused of accelerating out of a junction and 'veering' into the path of an oncoming car. Case reported in the national press. Legal submissions made to the prosecuting authority and proceedings discontinued prior to trial.
Instructed in this high profile appeal case. B admitted using a laser jammer to avoid getting penalty points on his driving licence. At York Crown Court, he was sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a suspended sentence for an immediate custodial sentence.
Instructed in this appeal against conviction case reported in Archbold at 32-211. The appeal issue was whether the bar to conviction for dangerous driving was applicable because the address of the Registered Keeper was not ascertained within 14 days as required by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. A police civilian employee observed an 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. The notice of intended prosecution was sent to the wrong address, in a distant place, being that (wrongly) recorded on the DVLA database. The court held that the Recorder was entitled to conclude that the prosecution acted with reasonable diligence. The 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.
Instructed by all four defendants in this 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 offence. Appeared for all four appellants at the Court of Appeal in the subsequent appeals against sentence. This case is a leading authority on the purposes of disqualification from driving; see Archbold at 5A-469 and Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences at 20.19.