Upload your documents, statements, or evidence to Caira and ask questions about your case. Caira is privacy-first—if you can think it, you can ask it, without judgement. Caira can help you spot inconsistencies, highlight potential issues, and prepare draft representations or letters—so you can make informed decisions about your next steps. Get practical support, clarity, and confidence before charges are considered. Start now
Why Pre-Charge Action Is Vital for Motoring Offences
Road traffic and motoring allegations—such as drink driving, dangerous driving, speeding, or driving without insurance—are often based on police observations, technical evidence, and strict procedural compliance. Unlike many other areas of criminal law, motoring offences are frequently determined by whether the police followed the correct statutory procedures to the letter. A single procedural error—an uncalibrated breathalyser, an improperly served notice, a failure to follow PACE Codes—can render key evidence inadmissible. The pre-charge stage is your best opportunity to identify these errors, challenge the evidence, and prevent unnecessary prosecution.
The consequences of motoring convictions can be severe: disqualification from driving, penalty points, fines, increased insurance premiums, and even imprisonment for the most serious offences. For many people, losing their licence means losing their livelihood. Acting early—reviewing the evidence, identifying weaknesses, and making representations—can make the difference between a conviction and no further action.
Requesting Disclosure
At the pre-charge stage, you should make targeted requests for all material relevant to the allegation. Motoring cases often depend on technical and documentary evidence, so knowing what exists is essential. Consider requesting:
Police reports and officer notebooks detailing the stop, observations, and any tests conducted
Witness statements from officers, passengers, or bystanders
Dashcam or CCTV footage from the scene, police vehicles, or nearby premises
Breathalyser or blood test results and the procedures followed
Calibration certificates and maintenance records for speed cameras, breathalysers, or other testing equipment
Body-worn camera footage from attending officers
Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and proof of service
Even if the police decline to provide everything, a formal written request creates a record that can support fairness arguments later. Reviewing the material you do receive—checking dates, times, procedures, and equipment details—can reveal errors that undermine the prosecution case.
Written Representations: Key Arguments
Motoring cases are particularly well-suited to pre-charge representations because they often turn on procedural compliance and technical evidence rather than disputed facts. Effective representations should:
Challenge procedural compliance: The police must follow strict statutory procedures when conducting breath tests, blood tests, speed detection, and roadside stops. If any step was missed—such as failure to offer a replacement breath test, failure to follow the Road Traffic Act 1988 procedures, or improper use of a speed detection device—the evidence may be inadmissible. Set out the procedural requirements and identify any breach.
Question the reliability of technical evidence: Breathalysers, speed cameras, and other devices must be regularly calibrated and maintained. If you can show that the device was overdue for calibration, had a history of faults, or was operated incorrectly, the results may be unreliable. Request calibration certificates and maintenance logs.
Raise alternative explanations: Medical conditions (such as acid reflux, diabetes, or certain medications) can affect breathalyser results. Road conditions, weather, and vehicle faults can affect driving behaviour. If there is a credible alternative explanation for the alleged offence, present it with supporting evidence.
Assert mistaken identity: In speeding cases based on camera evidence, if the registered keeper was not the driver, you are entitled to say so. In cases involving multiple vehicles or unclear footage, mistaken identity is a real possibility.
Highlight mitigating circumstances: Emergency situations, necessity (e.g., driving someone to hospital), or other compelling circumstances can affect both the evidential and public interest tests.
Request further lines of enquiry: If the police have not obtained dashcam footage, checked for CCTV, or interviewed relevant witnesses, request these enquiries in writing.
Common Grounds for Dismissal
Motoring cases are often dismissed at the pre-charge stage on the following grounds:
Insufficient evidence: If the evidence does not meet the CPS charging standard (a realistic prospect of conviction), the case should not proceed.
Procedural errors: Failure to follow the Road Traffic Act 1988, PACE Codes, or Home Office guidelines for testing equipment is one of the most common reasons for motoring cases to collapse. Even minor deviations from procedure can be fatal to the prosecution.
Calibration or maintenance issues: If the speed camera, breathalyser, or other device was not properly calibrated or maintained, the results may be unreliable and inadmissible.
Contradictory or unreliable witness statements: If the officer's account is inconsistent with other evidence, or if witnesses contradict each other, the evidential test is weakened.
Public interest test not met: For minor offences, first-time allegations, or cases with strong mitigation, the CPS may conclude that prosecution is disproportionate.
Failure to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) within 14 days: For many motoring offences, the NIP must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged offence. Failure to do so is a statutory bar to prosecution.
Important Evidence to Gather
Motoring cases often depend on technical and documentary evidence. Gathering the right material early is essential:
Dashcam, CCTV, or phone footage from the scene or your vehicle
Calibration and maintenance records for testing equipment (breathalyser, speed camera)
Medical records if a health condition may have affected driving or test results
Witness statements from passengers, bystanders, or other drivers
Evidence of compliance (insurance certificates, MOT, driving licence)
Proof of identity if mistaken identity is an issue
Records of the NIP and the date it was received
Nuanced Considerations
Motoring cases often hinge on strict procedural compliance. The police must follow detailed statutory procedures at every stage—from the initial stop to the administration of tests and the service of notices. Even small deviations can render evidence inadmissible. For example, if the police failed to offer a replacement breath specimen when the first was below the limit, or if the intoxilyser printout shows an irregularity, the entire prosecution may be undermined.
If the police have not pursued reasonable lines of enquiry—for example, failed to obtain dashcam footage before it was overwritten, ignored exculpatory witnesses, or did not check the calibration of their equipment—reference this in your representations. The officer in charge must retain and disclose all relevant material (see Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996).
If the incident involved an emergency or necessity—such as driving a seriously ill person to hospital—provide a detailed account and supporting evidence. The CPS must consider whether prosecution is in the public interest, and in genuine emergency situations, this test may not be met. Similarly, for minor speeding offences or first-time allegations, the public interest in prosecution may be low, especially if a driver awareness course or other disposal is available.
Precedent and Practice
The CPS charging decision is governed by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, requiring both evidential and public interest tests. Early, detailed representations can persuade the CPS that the evidential test is not met, especially if you can highlight procedural flaws or unreliable technical evidence. The public interest test is also relevant, particularly for minor offences or where prosecution would be disproportionate.
If you are under investigation for a motoring offence, act quickly. Evidence such as dashcam footage can be overwritten, and procedural time limits apply. Prepare a clear timeline of events, gather all relevant documents, and identify witnesses who can support your version of events. Challenge any assumptions made by investigators, request further lines of enquiry, and highlight any procedural errors or gaps in the evidence. Uploading your documents and correspondence to Caira can help you organise your material, spot inconsistencies, and draft strong representations.
How People Use Caira for Motoring Offences
People facing road traffic investigations use Caira to take practical steps towards resolving their situation. Common goals include:
Working towards having a case dropped before charges: Uploading police correspondence, NIP notices, and test results to identify procedural errors or evidential weaknesses and prepare draft representations aimed at no further action.
Building a defence strategy: Analysing the technical evidence, checking procedural compliance, and organising material to challenge the reliability of breathalyser readings, speed camera results, or officer observations.
Preparing representations to the CPS: Drafting structured submissions that highlight procedural flaws, calibration issues, or mitigating circumstances—with the aim of persuading the CPS not to proceed.
Requesting varied bail conditions: Reviewing bail paperwork and drafting written requests where conditions may be affecting your ability to work or meet family obligations.
Seeking early resolution: Identifying opportunities to engage with investigators to close matters early, especially where evidence is weak or alternative disposals may be appropriate.
Disclaimer: This article is general information only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice.
