Companion Website

Police Law - Ninth Edition

Chapter 16 - Driving Offences

Chapter 16 - Driving Offences

Exemptions from speed limits p 535

The exemptions provided by the RTRA 1984, s 87 are extended by SOCPA 2005 to those vehicles being used by the Serious Organised Crime Agency or for training purposes in respect of drivers of that organisation. However, other than in the case of training, a vehicle used by that organisation must be driven by a person trained to drive a vehicle at high speed.

Driving in a dangerously defective state through intoxication p 524

Replace material under this heading with the following -

Evidence of consumption of alcohol or drugs cannot by itself establish the fact that a driver has committed an offence of dangerous driving. The offence is concerned with the dangerous nature of the driving, not with the dangerous nature of the driver due to drink. While the consumption of a large amount of alcohol is relevant to an offence of dangerous driving it cannot be conclusive. Likewise the consumption of a drug, even if the amount is unquantified, has been held by the Court of Appeal to be relevant to an offence of dangerous driving, although it cannot be conclusive. In either case, there must be evidence that the vehicle was driven dangerously within the definition in RTA 1988, s 2A.

[New January 2007] The Dangerous State of the Vehicle p 523

A driver was convicted of an offence of dangerous driving in circumstances in which a bale of straw had fallen from his vehicle and injured a pedestrian. For 25 years the driver had loaded similar bales on to a trailer and had stacked them in the same way, compressing the alternately placed bales against a headboard by the use of telescopic loaders and securing the last two bales with straps. The Court of Appeal said that on the evidence which was before the jury, it was not reasonably open to them to conclude that the system of loading was inherently dangerous and should have been obvious to a competent and careful driver. For 25 years loads had been similarly secured without incident and without comment by Health and Safety Officers. It was difficult to see how a jury could have concluded that the condition of the semi-trailer was such that it must have been obvious to a competent and careful driver at first glance. [R v Few [2005] EWCA Crim 728]