CAUSING DEATH BY DANGEROUS DRIVING

Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this appeal against sentence case. In the Crown Court, with different representation, the appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and four offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to 12 years’ immediate custody. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to the significant mitigation present, adopted an unorthodox approach to the sentencing exercise and did not properly deal with the totality of the offending. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was reduced to 10 years’ immediate custody.

R v G (Northampton Crown Court) October 2024

Complex issues of non-insane automatism arising from mild obstructive sleep apnoea and shift work sleep disorder. Various expert witnesses were instructed by both sides and joint reports were prepared. The prosecution offered no evidence in the week before the case was listed for trial. Not guilty verdict recorded.

R v S (Chelmsford Crown Court) June 2022

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 at the PTPH. 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.

R v K (Lewes Crown Court) January 2019

The prosecution alleged that the defendant drove at over 100 mph whilst “racing” the vehicle in front. The lead vehicle crashed, causing the death of a passenger. The prosecution alleged that the defendant’s driving was a cause of the accident leading to that person’s death. After a five-day trial, the defendant was found not guilty but convicted of a less serious alternative offence.

R v D (Court of Appeal Criminal Division) 2016

The appeal against sentence concerned the custodial term imposed and a technical mater pertaining to the length of disqualification. The court of appeal ordered the crown court transcript to be amended.

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 2026 at 5A-524 and 5A-532 and Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences 32nd edition at 5-232, 20-26, 20-68 and 20-72. 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.”

CAUSING DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING

R v P (Grimsby Magistrates’ Court) December 2023

Instructed in this causing death by careless driving case by Chattertons solicitors. The prosecution alleged that the defendant failed to look properly when driving home on a country lane and collided with a cyclist, causing his death. The prosecution argued that the case was too serious to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court and should be committed for sentence to the crown court. The district judge accepted the defence submissions that the case could be dealt with in the magistrates’ court. Suspended Sentence Order.

R v S (Taunton Crown Court) July 2023

Instructed in this causing death by careless driving case. The prosecution alleged that the defendant failed to look properly at a junction, pulled into the path of a motorcyclist, causing his death. Guilty plea at the PTPH. Suspended Sentence Order.

CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY BY DANGEROUS DRIVING

R v S (York Crown Court) August 2026

Following a five-day trial, S was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The case was then adjourned for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. The case was categorised as either culpability A2 (starting point 3 years) or B2 (starting point 2 years). A lengthy sentencing note was prepared by the defence and after hearing submission, the sentencing judge imposed a Suspended Sentence Order with the minimum disqualification period.

R v G (Nottingham Crown Court) June 2026

The defendant and another were alleged to be ‘racing’ each other causing a head-on accident in which a driver was seriously injured. The victim alleged that his vehicle was hit by two vehicles. Expert evidence established that there was no contact between the defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle. The prosecution discontinued proceedings against the defendant and proceeded against the co-accused. A summary-only matter was remitted to the magistrates’ court for sentence pursuant to section 25A of the Sentencing Act 2020.

R v Courtney [2026] EWCA Crim 525

With leave of the Single Judge, C appealed against an 18‑month immediate custodial sentence for causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The Court upheld the trial judge’s findings that he had joined illegal street racing, drove at very high speed and caused serious injuries requiring surgery. The sentencing judge had, after a Newton hearing, placed culpability in Category A and concluded that, despite C’s youth, good character, remorse, and low risk of reoffending, the gravity of the offence required immediate custody. The Court of Appeal agreed, noting: “Those who race on ordinary streets as if they are a racetrack can expect and should expect custodial sentences.”

R v B (Nottingham Crown Court) September 2025

Instructed by Pragma Law Solicitors in this causing serious injury by dangerous driving case. The defendant, who was affected by alcohol, drove head-on into an oncoming cyclist - causing him very serious injuries. The defendant pleaded guilty after the PTPH but before trial. Suspended Sentence Order.

DANGEROUS DRIVING

R v H (Durham Crown Court) September 2025

Instructed on a direct access basis in this dangerous driving case. The prosecution alleged that the defendant deliberately rammed another vehicle off the road. The defendant accepted that his proximity when overtaking amounted to driving without due care and attention. He denied that he deliberately rammed the other vehicle. Following a two-day trial, the jury were out for only 6 minutes. Not guilty verdict.

R v V (Lincoln Crown Court) February 2024

Instructed by Chattertons Solicitors in this dangerous driving case. The prosecution alleged that the defendant and another performed wheelies at high speed whilst ‘racing’ each other over a long distance on high performance motorcycles. This case involved the instruction of experts and a pre-trial application to exclude evidence from a purported expert for the prosecution. Shortly before trial, the prosecution accepted a guilty plea to careless driving and a non-custodial sentence was imposed.

R v Pledge [2019] EWCA Crim 912, [2019] 4 WLR 110, [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 2026 at 32-211 and Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences 32nd 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.

PERVERTING THE COURSE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE

R v K and others (Derby Crown Court) July 2025

Instructed by the third defendant in this perverting the course of justice case. The first defendant falsely nominated the second and third defendants as the driver of his vehicle. All defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced together. The first defendant was sentenced to 15 months immediate custody and 16 weeks consecutive for breaching a Suspended Sentence Order. Disqualification 3 years pursuant to s.163 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Six months suspended for 12 months for the second defendant. 4 months suspended for 12 months for the third defendant.

R v B (Cambridge Crown Court) September 2024

Instructed 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 their case. The defendant persisted with the deception in correspondence with the police investigators but made 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 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 32nd edition at 6-105 and 6-106.