1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Culpable driving 2
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge T Eng (CEI), MIMI AMIRTE
AS I was explaining last week, in order to justify a conviction for dangerous driving, there must have been some fault, on the part of the driver, causing the situation.
Fault involves a failure, a falling below the care or skill of a com petent and experienced driver, in relation to the manner of the driving and the relevant circumstances of the case. A fault in that sense, even though it may be slight, even though it may be a momentary lapse, even though normally no danger would have arisen from it, is sufficient. The fault need not be the sole cause of the dangerous situation. It is enough if it is, looked at sensibly, a cause.
It is interesting to see what penalties the courts have imposed for causing death by dangerous driving, bearing in mind that the maximum penalty for this offence is five years jail. A man aged 20, with a first-class record and in regular employment, drove a Jaguar car at about 70 mph on a road with a 40 mph limit. He lost control of the vehicle and caused a death. A fine of £50 was substituted for a sentence of four months at a detention centre; a seven-year dis qualification from driving was upheld. R v McCarthy 0964) Crim L.R. 330.
A man with previous convictions, including an offence of careless driving, drove on sidelights only, on the crown of a country road at night, and killed a woman walking on his offside in an unanticipated dark patch. He did not stop. A sentence of nine months' jail and a 10-year dis qualification from driving was upheld. R v Challoner (1965) Crim L.R. 120.
A learner-driver aged 18 of excellent character caused a death through inexperience. There was no question of drink or skylarking. A fine of £10 was substituted for a sentence of three months in a detention centre; a five-year disqualification from driving was upheld. R v Mabley (1965) Crim L.R. 377.
A man aged 57, with no convictions, lost control of his lorry in consequence of repeatedly overtaking on a stretch of road where it was prohibited. He had taken drink beforehand. A sentence of 21 months' jail and a two-year disqualification was varied to nine months' jail and disqualification for 10 years. R v Worrell (1965) ('rim L.R. 561. Finally, in R v Morgan (1968) 52 Cr. App. R.235 it was said that in a really bad case of causing death by dangerous driving a custodial sentence was essential.
The circumstances
What circumstances actually amount to dangerous driving? In R v Evans (1962) 3 WLR 1457, the judge said: "It is quite clear from the reported cases that if the defendant in fact adopts a manner of driving which the jury think was dangerous to other road users in all circumstances, then on the issue of guilt it matters not whether he was deliberately reckless, careless, momentarily inattentive or even doing his incompetent best. Such considerations are highly relevant if it ever comes to sentence or to considering whether a prosecution is justified." In this particular case an inexperienced driver, driving at 40mph, increased to 60mph to pass a bus and collided with an oncoming car, killing the driver.
Busy crossing
The question was further discussed in R v Parker (1957)122 J.P. 17. In this case the defendant drove into a busy crossing against the traffic lights, struck a bus and then collided with and killed a pedestrian. It was held that it is always a question of fact whether driving was dangerous and a momentary act of negligence on the part of the driver may amount to dangerous driving.
The court said that it was "not going to attempt to lay down what is, or what is not, dangerous driving; that is a matter for the jury who hear all the facts and then have to consider whether the accused person drove in a manner dangerous to the public".
It would seem from these two cases that it is impossible to actually define dangerous driving; each case will have to be judged on its facts.