Speeding as a Criminal Offence: When Article 379.1 CP Turns a Fine into a Criminal Case

Not every speeding ticket is a crime. The vast majority of speeding cases are dealt with through an administrative fine and the loss of licence points, with no criminal record. Only when very specific margins are exceeded does the conduct cross the line into the road-safety offence of Article 379.1 of the Criminal Code (CP). As criminal defence lawyers specialising in speeding offences, in this article we explain exactly where that line lies, the penalties it carries and the lines of defence that work best to challenge the measurement.

The Thresholds: When Speeding Is a Crime

Article 379.1 CP sets a purely objective test, based on the difference from the limit lawfully in force:

• Urban road: it is a crime to exceed the limit by more than 60 km/h. For example, driving at more than 110 km/h where the limit is 50.
• Interurban road: it is a crime to exceed the limit by more than 80 km/h. For example, driving at more than 200 km/h on a motorway limited to 120.

What matters is not the absolute speed but the excess over the limit of that specific stretch. That is why it is decisive to verify which limit was in force at that exact point on the road. There is no need to prove that the driving created a concrete danger to anyone: once the threshold is exceeded, the offence exists in itself.

Penalties under Article 379.1 CP

When speeding is a crime, Article 379.1 CP provides three alternative penalties, of which the court chooses one:

• Imprisonment of 3 to 6 months, or
• A fine of 6 to 12 months (with daily quotas set according to financial capacity), or
• Community service of 31 to 90 days.

And, in every case, the penalty of disqualification from driving motor vehicles and mopeds for more than one year and up to four years is added. In other words, whatever the main penalty chosen, the loss of the licence is unavoidable.

It is also worth knowing that the law treats the vehicle used as an instrument of the offence, which opens the door to its confiscation in qualified cases.

The Line with the Administrative Offence

Below the thresholds of Article 379.1 CP, speeding is not a crime: it is an administrative traffic offence dealt with through the ordinary penalty route, with a monetary fine and deduction of licence points, no criminal proceedings and, above all, no criminal record. The practical difference is enormous:

	Administrative offence	Crime (Art. 379.1 CP)
Threshold	Excess below +60/+80 km/h	Excess of +60 (urban) / +80 (interurban)
Consequence	Fine and loss of points	Prison, fine or community service + licence loss
Criminal record	No	Yes, criminal record
Procedure	Administrative file (DGT)	Criminal Court / fast-track trial

For that reason, one of the most valuable defence strategies is to have a matter initially framed as a crime redirected to the administrative route where the measurement margins allow it.

Fast-Track Trial and Guilty Plea with Reduction

The speeding offence is usually processed through the fast-track trial, a swift procedure for flagrant offences with simple investigation that is held within a few days. This cuts both ways:

• Risk: the speed leaves little room to prepare the defence unless a lawyer intervenes from the very first moment.
• Opportunity: where admitting the facts is advisable, the law rewards a guilty plea before the duty court with a one-third reduction of the penalty requested by the prosecution, which also allows the exact length of the driving ban to be negotiated.

The decision to plead or go to trial must never be taken blindly: it depends on the strength of the evidence (essentially, the radar reading). That is why we first analyse the police report and the speed-measuring device before recommending either route.

Losing the Licence: the Most Certain Consequence

Although prison worries people most, for those with no prior record the custodial sentence is usually suspended or substituted and actual imprisonment is exceptional. The truly unavoidable consequence is disqualification from driving, which Article 379.1 CP always imposes for more than one year and up to four.

And there is a detail many drivers are unaware of: when the disqualification exceeds two years, the licence loses its validity definitively, so that to drive again it is not enough to wait for the sentence to end: you must obtain the licence anew, with the corresponding test. Negotiating to keep the penalty below that threshold can make the difference between recovering the licence and having to start from scratch.

Lines of Defence: Challenging the Radar Reading

Because the offence is purely objective, the defence almost always focuses on the reliability of the measured speed. The speed-measuring device is an instrument subject to legal metrological control, and any technical or procedural flaw is a route for the defence:

1. Current calibration and verification. Every radar must pass periodic metrological verifications. We always request the certificate in force: an expired or absent verification undermines the validity of the measurement.

2. Regulatory margin of error. Metrological rules recognise a margin of error that must be deducted from the reading. For speeds in the borderline zone, applying that margin correctly may leave the excess below the threshold of the offence and redirect it to the administrative route.

3. Type of device and conditions of use. A fixed radar, a mobile one and one mounted on a moving vehicle are not the same; each has its own requirements as to installation, angle and use. Incorrect use weakens the evidential value of the measurement.

4. Signage and the limit of the stretch. We verify which limit actually applied at the exact point (vertical signage, roadworks, transition sections). An error about the applicable limit completely changes the calculation of the excess.

5. Identification of the driver. In automatic captures it is not always proven who was driving. The prosecution must prove the identity of the driver, not just that of the vehicle.

The settled case law of the Spanish Supreme Court on road-safety offences stresses the objective nature of these offences and the central role of the technical evidence, which reinforces the importance of reviewing the measurement in detail from the very first moment.