R v G (Northampton Crown Court) October 2024
Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this causing death by dangerous driving case. Complex issues of non-insane automatism arising from mild obstructive sleep apnoea and shift work sleep disorder. Various expert witnesses instructed. Joint reports prepared. The prosecution offered no evidence in the week before the case was listed for trial. Not guilty verdict recorded.
R v B (Cambridge Crown Court) September 2024
Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this perverting the course of justice case. Leading counsel also instructed. Defendant initially denied being at a speed camera location. Police investigators used mobile phone data and ANPR images to prove the case. Admissions in interview. Guilty plea indicated at the earliest opportunity. The sentencing judge remarked that an immediate custodial sentence would usually be imposed for an offence of this seriousness. Suspended Sentence Order.
R v C (Harrow Crown Court) April 2024
Instructed on a Direct Access basis is this using a mobile telephone whilst driving case. Defendant convicted after trial at Ealing Magistrates’ Court. Defendant argued ‘exceptional hardship’ but was disqualified from driving for the mandatory minimum period. Disqualification immediately suspended pending appeal. Appeal against conviction allowed.
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 from driving at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court. Disqualification immediately suspended pending appeal. Appeal against sentence allowed.
R v V and another (Lincoln Crown Court) February 2024
Instructed by Chattertons Solicitors in this dangerous driving case. It was alleged that the defendant and another motorbike rider performed wheelies at very high speed. The defendant pleaded ‘not guilty’ and his case was listed for trial. Complex issues regarding admissibility of evidence (four expert witnesses, late service, bad character of expert witness). Prosecution offered no evidence in the week before the trial hearing when the defendant pleaded guilty to careless 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 and Sentencing Note drafted. Contested venue submissions were argued before a District Judge. The prosecution argued that the case should be sent to the Crown Court for sentence. However, the District Judge retained jurisdiction of the case. Suspended Sentence Order.
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 witnesses. Guilty plea entered at the earliest opportunity. The sentencing judge indicated 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.” Suspended Sentence Order.
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.