Alex McHugh
Alex McHugh joined Pump Court Chambers following successful completion of his pupillage. His key areas of practice are criminal defence, family, and landlord & tenant disputes.
Prior to joining Chambers, Alex worked as a paralegal for a number of years at a Legal 500 firm in London. Two of those years were spent in crime under the stewardship of extremely experienced senior partners. Alex helped manage cases from beginning to end and represented all manner of clients in respect of a full range of alleged offences.
As counsel, Alex defends his clients throughout every stage of proceedings. Alex accepts private and, where applicable, publicly funded briefs on road traffic offences, and has experience in representing clients in relation to speeding, drinking driving, “totting up”, and causing injury by dangerous driving offences.
Alex predominantly works across the Western Circuit, London, and the South East.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2019
Experience
- Hanne & Co Solicitors (2016 - 2022)
Qualifications
- Sociology (2015)
- GDL (2018)
- BPTC (2019)
Education
- University of Leeds (2015)
31 Contributions by Alex McHugh
PRACTICE NOTES
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 170: Duty to Stop, Give Details and Report Road Accidents—Offences, Defences and Sentencing (England and Wales)
Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988)
Drivers have a duty to stop at the scene of an accident and, when required, to provide their personal details and to report the accident. A failure to comply amounts to summary-only offences triable exclusively in the magistrates’ court. This obligation arises where:
a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle
is driving on a road or other public place; and
an accident occurs by which:
personal injury is caused to a person other than the defendant; or
damage is caused to another vehicle, to property not belonging to the defendant, or to an animal not in the vehicle
Damage to property refers to property constructed on, fixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land on which the relevant road or public place is situated, or land adjacent to such land. For the purposes of this offence, the definition of animal is confined to horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
RTA 1988 s 3A: Causing Death by Careless Driving while Under the Influence - Elements, Evidence, Alternative Verdicts and Sentencing (England and Wales)
This conduct constitutes an offence under section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). It is an indictable only offence and therefore can be tried solely in the Crown Court.
The elements of the offence
A person commits the offence where they:
cause the death of another person
by driving
a mechanically propelled vehicle
on a road or other public place
without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using that road or place
and, in addition, any of the following applies:
at the time of driving they were unfit to drive through drink or drugs
the level of alcohol or drugs in their blood exceeds the legal limit
they refuse to provide a specimen of blood or urine as required, or
without reasonable excuse, they refuse to consent to a laboratory test of a specimen of blood that has been taken
Causing the death of another person
The prosecution must also prove that the manner of driving alleged caused the death in question. The causation test is the same as that used for causing death by dangerous driving...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
RTA 1988 ss 7 and 7A: failing to provide specimens or permit blood testing—elements, reasonable excuse defences, procedure and sentencing (England and Wales)
Failing to provide a specimen
Under section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), a person commits an offence if, when required to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis, they fail to do so without reasonable excuse, whether they have driven, attempted to drive, or not. For detailed guidance on the requirement to provide a specimen, see Practice Note: Evidential specimens in road traffic cases.
Failing to give permission for a laboratory test
A separate offence arises where an individual supplies a blood sample but, without reasonable excuse, does not give permission for a laboratory test of that blood specimen. In those circumstances, they are guilty of an offence under RTA 1988, s 7(A)...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Sexual Assault: Historic Indecent Assault to SOA 2003—Elements, Consent, Assault by Penetration, Causing Sexual Activity, Transitional Provisions, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Sentencing (England and Wales)
The 'old' law and the current law
The old framework divides into three eras, determined by the date of the alleged offence. Dates determine which statutory regime applies.
1 January 1957–21 December 1976: governed by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (SOA 1956)
22 December 1976–2 November 1994: governed by section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (SO(A)A 1976)
3 November 1994–30 April 2004: governed by SOA 1956, s 1 (as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)
The current law applies as follows:
From 1 May 2004 onwards: section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003)
As historic sexual offences continue to be prosecuted under the previous legislation, this Practice Note outlines the earlier law together with the present position under SOA 2003, s 1.
Elements of the offence 'old' law—'indecent assault'
Under SOA 1956, s 14, it was an offence for any person to commit an indecent assault upon a woman. Under SOA 1956, s 15, it was likewise an offence for any person to commit an indecent assault upon a man. A woman could be liable under either of these sections...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Sexual Harm Prevention Orders in England and Wales: Scope, Requirements, Duration, Procedure, Variation, Interim Orders, Breach and Appeals
Section 345 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) authorises the court to impose sexual harm prevention orders (SHPOs) when dealing with a defendant on conviction for specified categories of offences.
The regime in sections 103A–103K of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) regulates SHPOs made other than on conviction, namely where:
a court returns a verdict of not guilty of a specified sexual or violent offence by reason of insanity
a court decides the defendant is under a disability and has carried out the act charged in relation to such an offence, or
the police apply in respect of a qualifying offender who presents a risk to the public
This Practice Note is principally concerned with SHPOs ordered as part of the sentencing exercise following conviction. For details on sexual risk orders (SROs), which do not form part of sentencing but may be pursued by complaint to a magistrates’ court against an individual believed to pose a risk of harm to the public, see Practice Note: Sexual risk orders.
Key features of a SHPO
...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Single Justice Procedure and Automatic Online Conviction and Penalty: Eligibility, Procedure, Time Limits, Evidence, Sentencing and Challenges in Magistrates’ Courts (England and Wales)
The single justice procedure
The single justice procedure came into force on 13 April 2015. Its core provisions sit in sections 16A–16F of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980), supported by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909. It is designed to handle high-volume, low-level crime more efficiently, removing the need for parties to attend a hearing.
Since 7 November 2023, defendants facing specified summary-only, non-imprisonable offences have been able to choose an automatic online conviction and penalty under MCA 1980, ss 16G–16M. This approach is described as the ‘automatic online conviction and penalty for certain summary offences’ and is intended to ease the continuing court backlog by allowing defendants in low-level cases to plead guilty and receive penalties without appearing in court.
The definitive list of offences eligible for the automatic online conviction service will be set by a statutory instrument that has not yet been made. A single justice may deal only with summary-only, non-imprisonable offences committed by adults or organisations. Where the single justice procedure applies, the...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Special reasons in road traffic sentencing: principles, procedure, case law and examples on avoiding or reducing disqualification and endorsement (England and Wales)
What are special reasons in driving sentencing?
Special reasons are a class of mitigating submissions that may:
prevent a defendant from being disqualified from driving, or reduce the period of any disqualification; or
prevent a defendant from receiving a penalty points endorsement
Such arguments are put forward after a conviction or following a guilty plea to driving offences. While the phrase ‘special reasons’ draws its authority from section 34(1) (disqualification) and section 44(2) (endorsement) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988), there is no statutory definition. Case law, however, provides assistance. A special reason is a mitigating or extenuating factor which does not amount in law to a defence to the allegation, is directly linked to the commission of the offence, and is one the court ought properly to take into account when passing sentence. A matter personal to the offender, as distinct from the characteristics of the offence, does not constitute a special reason...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Speeding Offences in England and Wales: Elements, Speed Limits, Restricted Roads, Evidence, Defences, Sentencing, and Employer Procurement or Incitement
The elements of the offence of speeding
Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out the offence of driving above a prescribed speed limit. The essential components are that:
an individual operates a motor vehicle
on a road
at a speed beyond a limit set by, or under, any enactment to which this section applies
The applicable enactments include those within the RTRA 1984 itself and any other enactment made after 1 September 1960. This offence is summary only and so is dealt with in the magistrates’ court.
Offences of exceeding the speed limit in the 1984 Act are divided into four classes:
exceeding limits on roads restricted to 20, 30, 40 or 50 mph
breaching temporary limits of 70, 60 and 50 mph on roads other than motorways
exceeding, on any road, the limit applicable to the class of vehicle
contravening speed limits that apply solely to motorways
Heavy lorries, for instance, are subject to limits under all four...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Statutory Contempt of Court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981: Elements, Defences, Procedure, Penalties and Related Reporting Offences (England and Wales)
The Contempt of Court Act 1981
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981) sets out the offence of strict liability contempt, also termed indirect contempt, arising from conduct by newspapers or other persons — including private individuals posting on social media — who publish material liable to interfere with forthcoming legal proceedings. This was formerly referred to as the sub judice rule. The following elements are required for liability to arise:
a publication (meaning any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to any section of it)
which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced; and
the proceedings are active
The CCA 1981 does not change the common law; it supports it...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Transferred mens rea: principle, accessory liability and joint enterprise, limits, and indictment drafting considerations
The principle of transferred malice/transferred mens rea
The Supreme Court has indicated that a more accurate label than 'transferred malice' is 'transferred mens rea'. Indeed, 'transferred malice' has been criticised as a misleading tag. Accordingly, this article will use 'transferred mens rea'.
The doctrine is engaged when a criminal purpose produces an unintended result or injury. It operates so long as the result or injury is of the same character as that intended, even if the person harmed is not the person aimed at.
Latimer illustrates the foundational rule. D attempted to strike V with his belt, missed, and unintentionally struck V2. D was convicted of assault notwithstanding the absence of an intention to hit V2.
The same logic was applied in Mitchell, in which D assaulted V, causing V to topple into V2. V2 was elderly and suffered a fracture that led to her death in hospital. D was found guilty of manslaughter despite lacking any intention to assault V2. The court concluded that it was unnecessary for D to have directed his unlawful act at V2 in order to be liable for its consequences...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Using, causing or permitting a motor vehicle without insurance: elements, key definitions, defences and sentencing under the Road Traffic Act 1988
The offence of driving with no insurance
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), it is unlawful to use a motor vehicle, or to cause or allow another to use one, unless a policy of insurance or a security covering third parties is in force. Driving without insurance is a summary-only offence that carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.
Elements of the offence
uses, or causes or permits use
of a motor vehicle
on a road or other public place
without valid third-party insurance or security in force
Meaning of ‘use’
The person regarded as the user of a vehicle is generally the driver, or their employer where the driving occurs in the course of employment. There must be some element of control, management, or operation of the vehicle at the relevant time. An owner can still be considered to be using the vehicle when travelling as a passenger, as they would typically retain a degree of control. See Cobb v Williams [1973] RTR 113 (not reported by LexisNexis®)...
Corporate Crime
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
