When Does “Driving” Begin? A Key 2026 Court of Appeal Decision Explained

A recent Court of Appeal decision,has provided important clarification on what amounts to “driving” under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This is a crucial issue in motoring law. Many offences, including dangerous driving, drink and drug driving, and causing death by driving, all depend on whether a defendant can properly be said to have been “driving” at the material time.

This case highlights that the concept is far broader, and more fact-sensitive, than many people assume.

The Facts: Starting the Engine from Outside the Car

The case arose from a tragic incident in which a vehicle moved forward and fatally struck a six-month-old child.

The key facts were unusual:

• The defendant was standing outside the vehicle, leaning into the driver’s door
• He turned the ignition key to start the engine, intending only to warm the car
• The vehicle had been left in gear with an inadequately applied handbrake
• As a result, the car moved forward under its own power
• The defendant was unable to access the controls to stop it once it moved

Importantly, there was no intention to drive or move the vehicle, and no ability to control it once it began moving.

The Original Trial Judge’s Decision

At trial, the judge ruled there was no case to answer on charges including causing death by dangerous driving.

Her reasoning was based on two key conclusions:

• The defendant was not in substantial control of the vehicle’s movement or direction
• His actions did not fall within the ordinary meaning of “driving”

In effect, the judge concluded that since he was outside the vehicle and unable to control it, he could not legally be “driving”.

The Court of Appeal: A Broader Approach to “Driving”

The Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the prosecution’s appeal.

1. It is a Question for the Jury

The Court emphasised that whether someone is driving is often:

• A question of fact and degree, and
• Usually for a jury to decide, rather than being ruled out by a judge as a matter of law . (However, the majority of the motoring offences we encounter are in the magistrates court which do not involve a jury but are decided by magistrates or by a judge.)

A case should only be withdrawn if no reasonable jury could find that the defendant was driving. That was not the case here.

2. Control Is Important – But Not Absolute

It has long been accepted that driving involves control over the movement and direction of a vehicle.

However, the Court clarified an important point:

• Being in control is necessary, but not always decisive
• A person does not cease to be the driver simply because control is lost

This is particularly important in cases of careless or dangerous driving, where loss of control is often part of the allegation.

3. Starting the Engine Can Be “Driving”

One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the Court’s treatment of the ignition.

The Court held:

• The ignition is one of the vehicle’s principal controls
• Starting the engine is ordinarily part of driving
• In many cases, driving begins when the engine is started

Even though the defendant did not intend the vehicle to move, he deliberately operated a key control, creating the conditions that caused the movement.

4. Intention Is Relevant – But Not Determinative

The defendant in this case did not intend to drive. He intended only to warm the vehicle.

However, the Court made clear:

• Lack of intention does not automatically prevent a finding of driving
• What matters is the nature of the act, not just the purpose behind it

Many road traffic offences arise from unintended consequences of deliberate actions.

5. Putting Yourself in a Position of No Control

A particularly interesting aspect of the reasoning is this:

• The defendant chose to start the engine while standing outside the car
• In doing so, he deprived himself of the ability to control the vehicle

The Court held that a jury could find that this:

• Did not excuse him from being the driver, but
• Was instead evidence of poor or dangerous driving conduct

Driving defined

This case is significant because it reinforces just how wide the concept of “driving” can be.

It confirms that:

• You do not need to be seated behind the wheel to be driving
• You do not need to intend to move the vehicle
• You may still be driving even if you lose control
• Actions such as starting the engine can amount to driving, depending on the circumstances

Practical Implications

For drivers, this decision serves as a warning:

• Interacting with a vehicle’s controls, even briefly or informally, can carry legal consequences
• Seemingly minor actions, such as starting the engine without proper checks, can lead to serious liability

For those facing allegations, it highlights the importance of:

• Carefully analysing what actions were taken
• Assessing the degree of control and connection to the vehicle
• Challenging whether conduct truly falls within the ordinary meaning of driving, where appropriate

Our Approach

At Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, we specialise in defending complex motoring cases where the definition of “driving” is in dispute.

Cases like this show that:

• The law is nuanced
• Outcomes often depend on detailed factual analysis
• Early strategic input can make a significant difference

If you are facing an allegation involving driving, dangerous driving, or drug driving, it is essential to obtain expert advice at the earliest opportunity.