Allegations of dangerous driving are taken extremely seriously by the courts, as they involve driving said to have placed other road users at serious risk. A conviction brings a mandatory driving ban of at least 12 months, the requirement to complete an extended re-test, and, in the most serious cases, a prison sentence of up to two years. Beyond the immediate penalty, a record for dangerous driving can affect your employment, professional standing, and insurance for years to come.
Dangerous driving is defined in law as driving that falls far below the standard expected of a competent driver, where it would be obvious that the driving created a risk of injury to others or serious damage to property. Common examples include:
- Driving at excessive speeds, racing, or aggressive maneuvers
- Overtaking in a clearly unsafe way and /or ignoring red lights or road signs
- Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or being impaired by medication
- Continuing to drive despite being unfit due to tiredness, poor eyesight, or illness
- Becoming dangerously distracted by using a phone, sat-nav, or other device
- Driving a vehicle with a dangerous defect or unsafe load
- Being involved in a police chase
Defending a Dangerous Driving Allegation
Before entering any plea, it is vital to examine the evidence in detail and assess whether the driving meets the strict legal test for “dangerous driving”. Our specialist lawyers offer tailored, realistic advice, forensic analysis of the prosecution material, and will explore every legitimate defence angle. Where a conviction cannot be avoided, we prepare detailed mitigation with the aim of securing the lowest possible sentence. Our team has extensive experience of the following defence strategies:
- Persuading the prosecution or court that the driving was careless rather than dangerous — for example, arguing that it did not fall “far below” the expected standard. In R v Conteh, the Court of Appeal confirmed that even where a fatality occurs, conduct will not be deemed dangerous unless it crosses this high threshold.
- Sudden emergency – where the driver was confronted by a sudden and unexpected hazard, such as another vehicle swerving into their path, an animal on the road, or a pedestrian stepping out unexpectedly. The law recognises that even competent drivers may momentarily react imperfectly when faced with a sudden danger.
- Challenging the identification of the driver where the evidence is unclear or disputed
- Obtaining CCTV, dashcam, or accident-reconstruction evidence to challenge and undermine the allegation
- Automatism – where a sudden and unforeseeable loss of control (for example, due to a medical episode) meant the driving was entirely involuntary
- Duress of circumstances – where the driver was compelled to act by an immediate threat of serious harm
- Mitigation – for example, demonstrating that factors such as fatigue, illness, or prescribed medication affected your driving and significantly reduce your culpability. Other forms of mitigation include the wider circumstances and personal background, as well as supporting evidence, such as character references
Click Here for Frequently Asked Questions
How Our Team Can Help
Reeds Solicitors is ranked Tier 1 in the Legal 500 for criminal defence and is recognised nationally for the quality of our advocacy and client care.
We can intervene at an early stage (before a charging decision) to submit representations to the CPS or police, arguing that the case should not proceed or that a lesser charge of careless driving is more appropriate.
If you are due to attend court, we can request the case papers in advance and provide tailored advice on the process, likely sentence and the appropriate plea. With over 20 offices across England and Wales, we can represent you at any Magistrates’ or Crown Court, offering both in-person and virtual meetings.
If you would like to discuss any aspect of your case, please email us at [email protected] or contact us here. Alternatively, you can phone 0333 240 7373.
Sentencing in dangerous driving cases depends on a number of aggravating and mitigating factors, which are outlined in the legal guidelines. Aggravating features include very high speeds, racing, collisions, carrying passengers, driving under the influence, or relevant previous convictions. Mitigating features can include a clean driving record, genuine emergency, good character, or evidence that the driving was a brief lapse in judgment.
If you are accused of dangerous driving, the police will usually want to interview you under caution. This can happen following an arrest or as a voluntary interview arranged at a police station. If you have been contacted by the police, we can provide you with specialist representation, to ensure that this important stage goes as smoothly as possible.The decision about whether to answer questions, provide a prepared statement, or give no comment is crucial. The right interview strategy depends on the specific facts of the allegation and the available evidence. Once the interview has taken place, we can assess the strength of the case and advise whether to submit written representations to the police or CPS. These may set out defence evidence, highlight evidential weaknesses, and argue that the matter should be discontinued or reduced to a lesser offence such as careless driving.
If your case proceeds to court, this is initiated via a formal charge at the police station or a postal requisition (a summons sent by post). Once instructed, we obtain the full prosecution papers promptly and provide clear legal advice about the evidence, the aggravating or mitigating factors, and the likely sentencing range.
Your plea is the most important step in the process. If you plead guilty, the case may remain in the Magistrates’ Court for sentence or be transferred to the Crown Court if a higher sentence is considered likely. If you plead not guilty, the Magistrates will first decide whether to retain jurisdiction or send the case to the Crown Court. Where jurisdiction is accepted, you can choose to be tried in the Magistrates’ Court or elect a Crown Court trial before a jury. Each route carries different advantages and risks, and our experienced driving offence solicitors will provide tailored advice to help you make an informed decision.
If you would like to discuss any aspect of your case, please email us at [email protected] or contact us here. Alternatively, you can phone 0333 240 7373.
True expertise comes from understanding not only the legislation but also the evolving body of case law — insight that enables genuinely strategic and effective defence preparation. Some key examples are set out below:
R v Conteh [2004]
The defendant drove at about 20mph through a green light, intending to turn left. A pedestrian unlawfully crossed from behind a van and was fatally struck. Although the result was tragic, the Court of Appeal ruled the driving did not fall far below the competent and careful driver standard. The conviction was reduced to careless driving. This case shows the high bar for “far below” and supports defence arguments that consequences alone do not prove dangerous driving.
Attorney General’s Reference (No.4 of 2000)
A driver mistakenly pressed the accelerator instead of the brake, causing a fatal collision. The Court confirmed that such an error can still amount to dangerous driving. The judgment makes clear that the prosecution does not need to prove any intent to drive dangerously — the test is entirely objective. Even an honest mistake may meet the legal threshold where the driving falls far below the expected standard.
DPP v Milton [2006]
A police officer drove at extreme speeds of up to 149mph to practice with a high-performance car. Although skilled and in control, the Court held this was dangerous driving because of the obvious risks to other road users. The case establishes that grossly excessive speed can itself cross the line for the offence of dangerous driving.
R v Bannister [2009]
A police officer argued that his advanced training meant he could safely drive at high speed. The Court of Appeal rejected this, ruling that dangerous driving must always be judged against the standard of the ordinary competent and careful driver. A driver’s special skill cannot lower that benchmark, and nor can inexperience raise it. For the defence, this case is valuable because it keeps the focus firmly on the driving itself. It prevents the prosecution from arguing that a trained driver “should have known better,” while also protecting inexperienced motorists from being judged more harshly than the legal standard allows.
Get in touch
Information is processed inline with UK GDPR and our Privacy Policy
FAQ
Dangerous driving is defined under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which states:
“A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.”
Under Section 2A of the same Act, driving is considered dangerous if:
“(a) the way the person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
In practice, this means the court must be satisfied that both the standard of driving fell far below the norm and that it would have been obvious the conduct created an obvious risk of injury or serious damage.
In dangerous driving cases, the prosecution in England and Wales may rely on a wide range of evidence — including police officer statements, officer body-worn video, witness statements, dashcam or CCTV footage, and expert collision-reconstruction reports. Technical material often features prominently, such as speed-measurement data, laser or radar device logs, telematics or on-board vehicle data, and mobile-phone usage records. In some cases, medical or toxicology reports are also relied upon to suggest impairment through fatigue, illness, alcohol, or prescription medication.
Yes, it is strongly advisable to have legal representation, even if you accept that the evidence against you appears strong. A specialist solicitor will assess the case papers carefully and may identify evidential issues or weaknesses that are not immediately obvious.
We obtain the prosecution papers in advance of the first hearing and review them thoroughly so that you are not taken by surprise on the day. In some cases, the evidence may not prove each element of the offence as alleged, or there may be scope to argue that the driving was careless rather than dangerous.
It is also common for a defendant to accept guilt in principle but dispute certain details of the prosecution’s account — for example, the extent of the driving, the level of speed, or what was said to the police. In such cases, we can prepare a carefully drafted basis of plea, admitting the offence but rejecting or clarifying specific allegations to ensure the court sentences on a fair and accurate factual basis.
Where the case is borderline, we can make representations that it should remain in the Magistrates’ Court rather than be committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
Even where guilt is not in dispute, the preparation of mitigation is critical. We take detailed instructions on your background, personal circumstances, and character, gathering supporting evidence and references to present your case in the best possible light. Time and again, strong and well-prepared mitigation makes a substantial difference to the sentence imposed.
Yes, dangerous driving carries a mandatory disqualification of at least 12 months, plus an extended re-test before you can regain your licence.
Careless driving is where the standard of driving falls below that expected of a competent driver. Dangerous driving is more serious — the standard must fall far below, and it must be obvious to a competent driver that it was dangerous.
Yes, and in some cases, we can persuade the prosecution or court that your driving was careless rather than dangerous. Careless driving does not carry a mandatory ban and usually results in penalty points or a much shorter disqualification.
Yes, prison is a real possibility, particularly in cases involving very high speeds, racing, or collisions. At the Magistrates’ Court, the maximum custodial sentence is now one year, while in the Crown Court it rises to two years.
Under the Sentencing Council guidelines, a custodial sentence will usually be imposed where the offence involves high culpability (such as deliberate disregard for road rules or prolonged bad driving) or greater harm (for example, injury or serious risk to others).
If the custody threshold is met, the court must then consider whether the sentence can properly be suspended. A suspended sentence order will often include requirements such as unpaid work, a curfew, rehabilitation activities, or attendance on a driving awareness or education programme.
Where the court assesses the offence as falling short of the custody threshold — for example, due to genuine remorse, low culpability, and/or strong personal mitigation — it may instead impose a community order with requirements.
If someone was injured, the prosecution may instead charge causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
Under section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, “serious injury” means physical harm amounting to grievous bodily harm (GBH) as understood in criminal law. The courts interpret this in line with DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290, which defines grievous bodily harm as “really serious harm.” It can include fractures, permanent disfigurement, significant loss of mobility or bodily function, or any injury requiring substantial medical treatment. Minor or short-lived injuries such as bruising, cuts, or shock do not meet this threshold.
Where a fatality occurs, the appropriate charge is causing death by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment. Both offences apply the same legal test for “dangerous driving” — the distinction lies solely in the outcome of the incident rather than the quality of the driving itself. This can be an important factor in mitigation, as it highlights that a momentary lapse in driving standard may lead to very different charges and sentencing outcomes depending on circumstances beyond the driver’s control.
Illness is not usually a defence to dangerous driving unless it can be shown that it caused a total loss of control that the driver could not reasonably have foreseen. If you were aware that you were unwell, tired, or taking medication that might impair your ability to drive, the law treats the decision to continue driving as part of the offence rather than a defence to it.
There are limited exceptions where an unforeseen medical episode, such as a first-time seizure, faint, or sudden blackout, caused the incident and could not reasonably have been anticipated. In such cases, the driver may be acquitted on the basis that the driving was involuntary and therefore not “dangerous” in law.
Although the test for dangerous driving is objective, judged by the standard of a competent and careful driver, that test only applies if there is a voluntary act of driving to assess. Where a driver loses all control due to an unforeseeable medical event, there is no conscious act capable of being measured against the objective standard. The law does not hold a person criminally responsible for conduct that was entirely involuntary, as recognised in cases such as Hill v Baxter and R v Marison.
Most dangerous driving cases begin and are heard in the Magistrates’ Court. However, the offence is classed as “either-way,” meaning it can be dealt with in either the Magistrates’ or the Crown Court depending on the seriousness of the case and the defendant’s choice.
If the Magistrates consider that their sentencing powers may not be sufficient — for example, in cases involving racing, very high speeds, or injury — they can send the case to the Crown Court for trial or sentence.
You also have the right to elect trial in the Crown Court, even if the Magistrates are willing to retain the case. Defendants sometimes choose this route where the evidence is complex, where credibility or intent is strongly disputed, or where they prefer a trial before a jury rather than a panel of Magistrates.
If convicted in the Crown Court, sentencing powers are higher, with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. However, our solicitors will advise you carefully on whether electing Crown Court trial is in your best interests, taking into account the strength of the evidence, the potential penalties, and the likely outcome in each court.
Yes, unless the court imposes an interim disqualification at your first hearing. This is rare and usually only happens in particularly serious cases.
The overall timescale depends on how the case progresses — from the initial police investigation through to any court proceedings.
If you are under investigation but not yet charged, the process can take several weeks or even months. The police will usually conduct an interview under caution, gather evidence
such as witness statements, collision reports, and expert analysis, and then submit the file to the CPS for a charging decision. We can often make early written representations during this stage, which can shorten the process or prevent a charge altogether.
If the case proceeds to court, the timeline depends on how you plead and which court deals with the matter.
- Guilty plea in the Magistrates’ Court: Sentencing usually takes place within 3–4 weeks of the first hearing, after being adjourned for a probation report.
- Not guilty plea in the Magistrates’ Court: A trial is typically listed within 4–8 months, depending on the court’s availability and whether expert evidence is required.
- Crown Court proceedings: Where a guilty plea is entered in the Magistrates’ Court and the case is committed to the Crown Court for sentence, the sentencing hearing is usually listed within about 4 weeks of committal. In some instances, the court may order a short further adjournment of 3–4 weeks to allow for the preparation of pre-sentence reports.
If the case is instead sent or elected to the Crown Court for trial, the first hearing (the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing) generally takes place within around 4 weeks. The timescale for trial then varies considerably between courts — complex or contested cases can take many months, and occasionally more than a year, to conclude.
Yes. The details depend on both the level of DBS check being carried out and the sentence imposed in your case. A Basic DBS check only shows unspent convictions. The length of time before a conviction becomes spent is determined by the sentence and varies depending on whether the court imposed a fine, community order, suspended sentence, or term of imprisonment.
A Standard or Enhanced DBS check will show both spent and unspent convictions where the role applied for is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This includes professions such as teaching, healthcare, financial services, and other regulated occupations. A conviction for dangerous driving will continue to appear even after it has become spent because it is not eligible for filtering under the DBS disclosure rules.
A dangerous driving conviction stays on your DVLA driving record for 4 years from the date of the offence. This endorsement period is separate from the court record or police databases, where the conviction remains recorded.
During this 4-year period, you are required to declare the conviction to motor insurers when asked, as most insurance applications require disclosure of motoring convictions within the past 5 years.
After 4 years, the endorsement is automatically removed from your driving record, although you must still reapply for your licence and pass an extended re-test before being allowed to drive again.
Yes — a dangerous driving conviction is among the most serious offences an insurer can consider, and it is extremely likely to significantly increase your insurance premiums. Some insurers may even refuse cover entirely, forcing you into specialist convicted-driver or high-risk policies.
While there is no consistent public data exclusively for dangerous driving, insurer commentary suggests applicants may see premium increases often two or three times higher compared to a clean record. However, the actual increase will depend heavily on your driving history, the vehicle you drive, your age, location, and how long ago the conviction occurred.
Over time, as the conviction becomes more distant and no further incidents occur, insurers may gradually reduce the premium.
With over 20 offices across England and Wales, our specialist motoring solicitors can represent you at any Magistrates’ Court nationwide. We regularly defend clients across London, the South East, Midlands, South West, North West, and Wales, offering both in-person and virtual appointments.
London and the South East City of London, Westminster, Bromley, Croydon, Highbury Corner, Ealing, Uxbridge, Wimbledon, Reading, Oxford, Slough, High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, Crawley, Brighton, Canterbury, Maidstone, Guildford.
South West and West Midlands Bristol, Swindon, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Poole, Exeter, Barnstaple, Birmingham, Coventry, Leamington Spa, Warwick, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent.
East of England and East Midlands Cambridge, Peterborough, Northampton, Leicester, Loughborough, Wellingborough, Huntingdon, Luton, Bedford, Lincoln, Nottingham.
North West Manchester, Bolton, Liverpool, Preston, Blackburn, Wigan, Chester, Warrington.
Wales Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Wrexham, Aberystwyth.
Wherever your case is listed, our motoring specialists provide experienced representation, early advice, and a dedicated strategy to protect your licence and minimise the impact of proceedings.