Charged with predatory driving in NSW.

The legislative source.

The section has three elements: (a) the accused was driving in pursuit of or travelling near another vehicle; (b) the accused engaged in a course of conduct that caused or threatened an impact involving the other vehicle; and (c) the accused intended by that course of conduct to cause a person in the other vehicle actual bodily harm.

The intent element is the heart of the offence. Mere reckless or dangerous driving is not enough; the Crown must prove an intent to cause physical harm. Subsection (3) provides a double-jeopardy protection: an accused convicted or acquitted of predatory driving cannot be prosecuted for a different offence under the Crimes Act on the same facts.

The offence is often charged in road-rage and pursuit fact patterns where the conduct goes beyond dangerous driving and crosses into the use of a vehicle as a weapon. It is strictly indictable in the District Court.

Penalties and likely outcomes.

Maximum and realistic range.

Maximum 5 years on indictment. For a first-offence matter where the intent element is established but the conduct was at the lower end (no actual impact, brief pursuit, no injury), an ICO of 12 to 24 months is realistic. Where the conduct produced an actual impact or where the pursuit was sustained, full-time custody is the realistic outcome.

Aggravating circumstances.

Actual injury caused by the conduct, sustained or prolonged pursuit, multiple victims (passengers in the targeted vehicle), use of the vehicle on residential streets, and any link to other offending (DV context, threats prior to the pursuit) all increase the sentence.

Subjective factors.

No prior driving or violence record, mental health context where relevant, early plea, evidence of remorse, and rehabilitation engagement all reduce the sentence. Suspension or cancellation of driver licence is a typical consequence on top of any custodial sentence.

Defences and arguments worth running.

The intent element.

The Crown must prove the accused intended by the course of conduct to cause actual bodily harm. Where the conduct was reckless, dangerous, or even menacing but not intended to cause physical harm, the section is not made out. The defence will frequently push for a charge of dangerous or negligent driving instead.

Pursuit or travelling near.

The driving must have been in pursuit of or travelling near the other vehicle. Brief or incidental encounters do not satisfy the section. Where the accused was not in pursuit (different destination, divergent route, no following pattern), the element is contestable.

Course of conduct.

A single isolated act does not constitute a course of conduct. The pattern of driving over the relevant period must be established. Where the prosecution case rests on one swerve or one tailgating incident, the course-of-conduct element is challenged.

Identification.

For matters where the accused is identified by witness or CCTV alone, the identification is tested at trial. Vehicles can be confused, registration numbers misread, and pursuits can involve more than one vehicle.

What we do for clients facing this charge.

The first step in a predatory-driving matter is the brief. CCTV, dash-cam footage from the complainant or other drivers, traffic-camera material, and the police-vehicle BWC footage are all sought immediately. Predatory-driving matters frequently turn on what the footage actually shows; verbal accounts of pursuit are often less reliable than the visual record.

Where the intent element is properly in question, the matter is run on that ground. The relationship between the parties before the pursuit (any prior altercation, any communications) is investigated. Where intent was tied to a specific provoking incident, mitigation is significantly stronger than where the matter looks like sustained predation.

For matters that resolve on plea, the strategy is to keep the matter at the lower end of the section 51A spectrum where the facts support it, or to negotiate a plea to dangerous driving (s 52A RTA) or menacing driving under the Road Transport Act framework where the intent element is doubtful.

What we tell clients on the first call.

The practical detail below is not legal advice for your matter. It is the version of the conversation the firm typically has with a client charged with predatory driving in the first hour.

What evidence police usually rely on.

Crash investigation reports, in-car camera or dash-cam footage, witness statements, mechanical reports on the vehicle, and a blood and urine analysis. In injury matters, the medical evidence of harm is central.

What to bring to the first consultation.

• The Court Attendance Notice (or charge sheet) and any bail papers.
• Anything police gave you in writing — fact sheet, certificate of analysis, search warrant copy, property seizure record.
• A short written timeline of the day, in your own words.
• Any medical records or rehabilitation evidence; a written account of the trip, the road conditions, and any mechanical concerns about the vehicle.

Common mistakes in the first twenty-four hours.

• Talking to anyone other than your lawyer about the matter. Friends, family, co-accused and social media are not privileged.
• Deleting messages, photographs, posts or browser history. The trail left by deletion is often more damaging than what was there.
• Contacting the complainant or any prosecution witness, even through a third party.
• Speaking to insurance investigators or to the complainant's family without advice. Anything said may be tendered.

What not to say to police without advice.

You must give your name and address. You do not have to answer anything else, and in most cases you should not. The standard answer is: “I do not wish to answer questions. I want to speak to my lawyer.” Section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) protects silence; the narrow section 89A exception applies only on indictable matters and only where a special caution has been given in the presence of an Australian lawyer.

The timeline you can expect.

From charge to first court appearance is typically two to six weeks in the Local Court and longer where the matter is indictable. The brief of evidence is served by the prosecutor on a date set at the first mention. From service of the brief to first reply is typically twenty-eight days. Defended hearings and committals are then listed weeks or months out depending on the court list.

When an early plea may or may not be appropriate.

An early plea attracts a sentencing discount of up to twenty-five per cent if entered at the first available opportunity, but it locks in a conviction. The firm does not advise an early plea before the brief is served and read. An early plea is rarely appropriate before a full mechanical inspection, experienced evidence on causation, and the medical evidence are reviewed.

Court-specific notes.

If the matter is listed at the Downing Centre, Parramatta, Penrith, Burwood, Manly, Newtown, Waverley, Hornsby or Sutherland Local Court, the firm appears in person. Wollongong Local Court matters are run from the firm's Wollongong office. ACT Magistrates Court and ACT Supreme Court matters are run from chambers; the firm appears in person at all ACT mentions.

Recent outcomes · predatory driving matters.

Anonymised outcomes from the firm's matter set. Names, dates beyond the year, and identifying details have been altered or omitted to preserve client confidentiality. Each result was determined on the particular facts and is not a guarantee of any future outcome.

Frequently asked.