Lawyers for Urban Speeding Offenses

Urban speeding carries a lower criminal threshold compared to highway offenses: exceeding the speed limit by 60 km/h in an urban area constitutes a criminal offense under Article 379.1 of the Criminal Code. Given that urban speed limits are typically 30-50 km/h, this means driving at speeds of 90-110 km/h in a city can result in criminal prosecution.

Legal Framework

Urban speed limits are typically 30 or 50 km/h, so the 60 km/h margin set by Art. 379.1 CP means that driving at 90-110 km/h in a city tips the conduct from an administrative infraction into a criminal offence. Identifying the exact posted limit at the precise point of the measurement —which may have changed recently or vary by street— is therefore the starting point of the analysis.

Penal Threshold by Zone

The offence is completed when driving more than 60 km/h above the limit. In a 20 km/h street the threshold is 80 km/h; in a 30 km/h street, 90 km/h; in a 50 km/h street, 110 km/h. The exact limit in force at the precise measurement point —which may have been recently reduced or vary from street to street— is therefore the starting point of any analysis.

The Metrological Margin

The recorded speed must always have the camera's metrological error margin deducted: 3 km/h up to 100 km/h and 3% above that for fixed devices; 5 km/h or 5% for mobile devices. Applying this margin can bring the real speed below the criminal threshold and reduce the case to an administrative matter. A current calibration certificate for the device is therefore essential, and we request it as a first step.

Defence Strategies: Signage and Limits

A crucial defense element is proper signage. Urban speed limits must be clearly posted and visible. If the speed limit change was not adequately signaled (missing signs, obscured signs, recent limit reduction without proper notice), this can constitute an error of type (error de tipo) that negates criminal intent. We document road conditions and signage through expert inspections, and we apply the device's tolerance margin to seek to bring the recorded speed below the criminal threshold.

Criminal Consequences

The criminal penalties are the same as for any road safety crime: imprisonment of 3 to 6 months or a fine of 6 to 12 months, community service of 31 to 90 days, and the deprivation of the right to drive of 1 to 4 years. For first offenders, prison sentences are typically suspended, but the licence deprivation can have devastating professional consequences, which makes it a central focus of the defence.

The line between an administrative penalty and the offence under Art. 379.1 CP

Not every instance of speeding on an urban road is a crime. Article 379.1 of the Spanish Criminal Code only punishes driving a motor vehicle or moped at a speed exceeding the urban limit by more than 60 km/h (and the interurban limit by more than 80 km/h). Below that threshold the conduct is not criminal: it falls within the penalty regime of the Road Traffic Act (Royal Legislative Decree 6/2015), with a financial fine and loss of licence points, but without a criminal record or the involvement of a judge.

That difference of a single kilometre per hour can separate an administrative penalty from a criminal prosecution, so the starting point of any defence is to establish precisely what limit applied on that specific stretch and what speed is actually proven. The general urban limit is usually 50 km/h, but there are stretches of 30 or 20 km/h depending on the type of carriageway and the signage, which completely changes the calculation of the relevant excess.

It is worth remembering that this is an offence of abstract danger: it requires neither an accident nor any harmful result. It is enough that the speed exceeds the legal threshold for the risk that the rule seeks to prevent to be deemed created. For that reason the technical argument rarely turns on harm, and almost always on the measurement and its validity.

How speed is measured and how the evidence is challenged: speed cameras, error margins and verification

The core item of prosecution evidence is the reading from the speed camera or radar. Its reliability is not simply presumed: the device must be subject to legal metrological control, which requires a current periodic verification and, where applicable, the corresponding model approval. The defence can and should request the verification certificate for the specific unit and check that it was in force on the day of the events; an instrument without valid verification loses much of its evidential weight.

In addition, metrological rules recognise a margin of error that must be deducted from the reading to obtain the speed that can be criminally attributed. That margin varies according to the type of device (fixed, mobile, or installed in a moving vehicle) and the speed band, and is usually larger for mobile units. Applied correctly, it may bring the speed below the criminal threshold and redirect the matter to the administrative track, or even leave it without any penalty.

This is why the police report deserves close examination: the identification of the device, its serial number, the verification certificate, the conditions of the measurement, and the chain running from capture to the formal complaint. Any defect in the control of the instrument, in its installation, or in the supporting documentation is a legitimate point of defence that can affect the essential evidence of the prosecution.

The procedure: the police report, the fast-track trial, plea agreements and the competent court

These offences usually follow the fast-track trial procedure set out in Articles 795 and following of the Criminal Procedure Act. The investigation is conducted by the Investigating Court, frequently sitting as the Duty Court, and the trial falls to the Criminal Court. The speed of the procedure is an advantage, but also a pressure: within a few days the person under investigation must decide on a strategy, sometimes while being offered a plea agreement.

A plea agreement allows the facts to be admitted in exchange for a reduced sentence, and in these trials a reduction of up to one third may apply where the legal requirements are met. It is a legitimate and often reasonable option, but it should not be accepted automatically: it is first advisable to review whether the measurement is sound, whether the error margin favours the accused, and whether procedural defects exist. Pleading guilty without that analysis can mean giving up a defence with real prospects.

The competent court and the type of procedure shape the deadlines, the available appeals, and the negotiation itself. For that reason, legal assistance from the outset, ideally already at the Duty Court, makes it possible to control the sentence ultimately sought, to assess any plea agreement on an informed basis, and to preserve, where appropriate, the right to a contested trial in which the evidence is properly examined.

Penalties, deprivation of the driving licence (Art. 47 CP), mitigating factors and prescription

A conviction under Article 379.1 carries, as the principal penalty, imprisonment of 3 to 6 months, or a fine of 6 to 12 months, or community service of 31 to 90 days. But the most keenly felt consequence is usually the deprivation of the right to drive motor vehicles and mopeds, provided for in Article 47 of the Criminal Code, which for this offence is imposed for a period exceeding 1 year and up to 4 years. That disqualification is mandatory and cannot be replaced by a fine.

The defence works on the circumstances that modulate the sentence. Mitigating factors such as a confession, reparation, or personal circumstances may be relied upon, as may the absence of prior convictions, which often makes it possible to steer the criminal response towards a fine or community service rather than imprisonment, and to shorten the disqualification period. A very high excess or unfavourable circumstances of the event operate in the opposite direction and must be anticipated.

As to prescription, these road-safety offences carry a maximum penalty that does not exceed five years, so, under Article 131 of the Criminal Code, they become time-barred after five years. There is no three-year band here: the applicable period is five years. Checking the dates and the running of the limitation period is always one of the first controls a defence carries out, because a finding of prescription extinguishes criminal liability.