Pump Court Chambers
8 Experts
34 Contributions by Pump Court Chambers Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
Proving the identity of the driver
Where the bench is satisfied the defendant was served with a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the court receives a statement from the defendant admitting they were the driver, that statement is accepted as proof of identity. If no such admission exists—either because a RTA 1988, s 172 notice was not properly served in line with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 4, or the allegation is not one to which section 172 applies—the magistrates will look to other material.
Information provided by the registered keeper to police during interview or questioning
Entries held on the police national database
See: Creed v Scott [1976] RTR 485 (not reported by LexisNexis®) and DPP v Bayliff [2003] EWHC 539 (Admin) (not reported by LexisNexis®). Details supplied to the police may suffice to prove who was
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Careless or inconsiderate driving
If someone drives a car carelessly on a road or in a public place, or acts without regard for other users of that road or place, they may commit the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). Under RTA 1988, s 3, the offence is triable summarily only.
Elements of the offence of careless driving
To be convicted, it must be shown that a person:
drives
a mechanically propelled vehicle
on a road or other public place
without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration, for other persons using the road or public place
Drive
Although the RTA 1988 does not define driving, the courts have ruled that driving is a physical act that only an individual can perform. The Divisional Court has determined that the
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving
A motorist who drives without due care or with a lack of regard for other road users, and whose driving leads to a fatality, may commit the offence of causing death by careless driving under s 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). It is an either-way offence, capable of being heard in the Crown Court or the magistrates’ court.
Elements of the offence of death by careless driving
The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant:
caused another person’s death
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 the road or public place
CPS guidance on charging decisions arising from driving incidents has been revised. The two most notable updates from the earlier guidance relate to drivers responding to emergencies and fatalities where the
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The elements of the offence of dangerous driving
Dangerous driving arises under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). It is an indictable-only offence, triable solely in the Crown Court. The offence comprises the following:
causing the death of another person by:
driving
a mechanically propelled vehicle
on a road or other public place
dangerously
The issue is whether the defendant’s driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and whether it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that manner was dangerous. This is an objective assessment. It must be obvious to the competent and careful driver that it is dangerous to either:
drive in that manner, or
use the vehicle in its
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Causing death by driving while disqualified
Section 3ZC of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) sets out the offence of causing death by driving whilst disqualified. This offence is indictable only and carries the most serious potential sentence (see below: Sentencing for causing death while driving offences committed while unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified). The offence is made out when:
a person causes another’s death by driving a motor vehicle on a road, or
at the time the death was caused, the driver was disqualified from driving contrary to RTA 1988, s 103(1)(b)
Under the RTA 1988, a ‘motor vehicle’ is a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road. A ‘road’ includes any highway and any other road to which the public has access, as well as bridges over which a road
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
A central aim of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, is the efficient management of criminal proceedings. In CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, Pt 3 sets out the detailed provisions on active case management. CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, rr 3.1–3.15 apply to all matters in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court alike. CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, rr 3.16–3.18 relate specifically to cases in the magistrates’ court. See Practice Note: Case management in the magistrates’ courts. CrimPR 2025, SI 2025/909, rr 3.19–3.34 govern Crown Court cases and are explained in this Practice Note.
The CrimPR provide for two principal types of case management hearing in the Crown Court, which are outlined in greater detail below:
plea and trial preparation hearings (PTPHs), and
further case management hearings (FCMHs)
An FCMH should be listed only where a case is complex in nature.
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
For thorough guidance on dangerous driving where a death occurs, see Practice Note: Death by dangerous driving.
The offence of dangerous driving, contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), can be tried in the Crown Court or in the magistrates’ court.
Elements of the dangerous driving offence
To be guilty of the offence, a person must satisfy the following:
drive
a mechanically propelled vehicle
on a road or another public place
in a dangerous manner
Causing injury by dangerous driving
RTA 1988, s 1A, outlaws the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. It is an either way offence. Its ingredients mirror those for dangerous driving, with the further requirement that the driving results in serious injury. Serious injury means physical harm amounting to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Discretionary power to disqualify from driving
The principal legislation governing discretionary bans from driving consists of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988) and the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020), the latter being known as the Sentencing Code.
The Sentencing Council has issued overarching guidance drawing together all existing material on driver disqualification.
These guidelines apply to every adult offender sentenced on or after 1 April 2025, regardless of when the offence was committed.
They explain when the power to disqualify is engaged, how the term of any disqualification should be fixed, the available exceptions, and how a disqualification is administered.
Offences to which discretionary disqualification applies
Where an offender is convicted of an offence for which disqualification is discretionary and either the penalty points to be counted are fewer than 12, or the offence does not require obligatory endorsement, the court may order a period of
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
What is an evidential specimen?
After arrest on suspicion of an alcohol- or drug-related driving offence, police officers will ask the detainee to supply a sample of breath, blood or urine for analysis. The sample is termed an ‘evidential specimen’ because the analytical results are relied upon by the prosecution to establish a particular offence, for instance that the motorist was driving with excess alcohol in their system. An evidential specimen should be contrasted with a ‘preliminary test’. A preliminary test, such as a roadside police breath test, is carried out by police who suspect consumption of alcohol or drugs. Such testing is only indicative. To prove an offence like driving with excess alcohol, an ‘evidential specimen’ must be taken. The Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) removed the need for an officer to undertake a preliminary test where a portable evidential
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) sets out several distinct alcohol and drug related offences. The principal ones are:
driving with excess alcohol or drugs
attempting to drive with excess alcohol or drugs
being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol or drugs
driving or attempting to drive while unfit, and
being in charge of a motor vehicle while unfit
All of these offences are summary-only offences. This Practice Note addresses driving impairment offences arising from excess alcohol consumption. For drug related driving impairment offences, see Practice Note: Driving, or being in charge of, a motor vehicle with concentrations of specified controlled drugs in excess of specified levels.
Elements of the offence of driving with excess alcohol
The prosecution must prove:
the defendant was driving
on a road or other public place
a motor
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Defendant to raise their defence
A number of defences may arise in road traffic prosecutions. These include:
automatism
insanity
duress and necessity, and
the 'hip flask' defence
When a defendant intends to rely upon a particular defence, they must place sufficient material and evidence before the court to properly raise the issue for trial. This is the 'evidential burden'. It is separate from the legal burden of proof, which imposes an obligation on a party to prove a fact in issue. The prosecution ordinarily bears the legal burden of proof. See Practice Note: Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings.
The evidential burden may be satisfied if the defendant enters the witness box and sets out their defence. Consequently, once the issue is raised by the defence, the onus then passes to the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard (beyond
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The offences
The Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) sets out two specific offences:
securing a driving licence whilst disqualified; and
driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst disqualified.
A uniformed constable may, without a warrant, arrest any person found driving on a road where there is reasonable cause to suspect they are disqualified.
What the prosecution has to prove
To establish either offence, the prosecution must prove the accused did one of the following:
obtained a licence whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining one; or
drove a motor vehicle on a road whilst disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence.
A licence procured during a period of disqualification is not valid. Consequently, an accused could also face an allegation of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. For this offence, being merely in charge is
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Excluding evidence of the defendant's 'bad character' under CJA 2003, s 101(3)
Where material demonstrating a defendant’s bad character is capable of admission under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) to indicate a tendency to offend or to be dishonest (gateway D), or to meet an attack on another individual’s character (gateway G), the CJA 2003 provides that the court ‘must not admit’ that material if it appears that receiving it would have such an adverse impact on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to receive it. For guidance on the circumstances in which gateways D and G operate, see the Practice Notes: Admissibility of bad character to prove propensity, Admissibility of bad character to prove untruthfulness, and Admission of bad character to correct false impression or to counter an attack, for further information and
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note deals with the position regarding the evidence of an expert witness called in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 19 and the Criminal Practice Directions
A party may call an expert only where the subject-matter lies outside the ordinary knowledge of the judge or jury. Expert opinion should not be used where the court’s own knowledge suffices. The judge’s gatekeeping role is central in this context. A person may present themselves as an expert only if appropriately qualified—the issue is for the judge, who will evaluate:
whether the opinion belongs to a body of knowledge and experience with sufficient organisation to be regarded as reliable;
and whether the witness has, through study or experience, acquired enough understanding of the field so that their evidence would assist the court on a
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Offence of failing to co-operate with a preliminary test
Failing, without a reasonable excuse, to comply with a preliminary test when lawfully required amounts to an offence. This is a summary-only offence. The components are:
failing
to co-operate with
a preliminary test
when required, and
without reasonable excuse
The prosecution must prove each element to the criminal standard, namely beyond reasonable doubt.
Under the Deregulation Act 2015, the previous obligation to carry out a preliminary breath test before evidential breath tests has been removed. Police may therefore proceed directly to evidential breath testing at the roadside where a portable evidential device is available, although the power to require a preliminary breath test remains.
Failing to co-operate
‘Failing’ includes refusing. If a defendant is asked to co-operate with a preliminary test, has the opportunity to do so, yet chooses not to, that is a clear
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The scope of offences a juror may commit in connection with a trial on which they sit was widened when the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) introduced, in particular, four new offences into the Juries Act 1974 (JA 1974). The pre-existing JA 1974 offences, together with the offence of contempt of court, remain available to those examining alleged jury irregularities and misconduct. For further guidance on such irregularities, see the Practice Note: Dealing with jury irregularities. The Criminal Practice Directions (CPD) now reflect the offences set out in JA 1974, ss 20A–20D, together with the related repeal of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981). Judges dealing with juror misconduct enjoy a wide discretion as to how they wish to proceed against the juror concerned, as
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note addresses the procedural matters relating to juries under the Act 1974.
Who is entitled to serve on a jury?
Section 1 of the Act 1974 (JA 1974) provides that all persons may sit on a jury so long as:
the individual is listed as a parliamentary or local government elector
is aged at least 18 and not over 75 years of age
has been usually resident in the UK, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man for any span totalling at least five years since reaching the age of 13, and
is not barred from jury service
The maximum age limit for jurors is 75 years old...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
A notice of intended prosecution (NIP) is a formal alert, typically issued by the police authorities, indicating that proceedings are being contemplated against an individual. Its purpose is to afford that person an opportunity to collect and preserve evidence in support of their case.
The requirement to notify in road traffic cases
Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988), s 1, for certain offences:
the defendant must have been advised at the time of the possibility of prosecution for the offence; or
the defendant must have been served with a summons within 14 days of the offence; or
a notice of the possibility of prosecution must have been sent by the prosecutor within 14 days of the offence, either to the driver or to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Fulfilling the requirements under RTOA 1988,
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Police powers and preliminary tests
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), three categories of preliminary testing exist. These are:
a police-administered breath test, in which a suspect supplies a breath specimen that is analysed to determine whether the proportion of alcohol in the person’s breath is likely to exceed the prescribed limit
a preliminary impairment test used to assess the driver’s physical reactions and capability, and
a preliminary drug test, a process by which a sample of sweat or saliva is taken to indicate whether drugs have been administered by the driver
The Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) removed the need for an officer to carry out a preliminary test where a portable evidential breath test device is available. In those circumstances, the officer may proceed directly to the evidential breath tests. The option to require a preliminary breath test remains
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Elements of the offence of production of a controlled drug
It is an offence to:
be involved
in the production
of a controlled drug
This either-way offence can therefore be handled in either the magistrates’ or Crown Courts.
The meaning of 'being concerned' in the production of a controlled drug
Case law confirms that, to secure a conviction, the Crown must demonstrate the defendant assumed an identifiable role in the drug’s production (R v Farr). The leading authority on this issue is Farr. The defendant permitted two people to use his kitchen to produce heroin; there was no prior arrangement. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, ruling that there must be identifiable participation in the process of producing a controlled drug; on these facts, only passive presence was proved. The proper allegation in those circumstances would have been under section 8 of the Misuse of
Corporate Crime
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
