Q I have always understood that if avehicle is driven accidently
Page 76
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
into a preceding vehicle the driver of the following vehicle has no defence against a charge of driving without due care and attention. However, I am told that this is now not necessarily so. Could you explain please?
In the case of Scott v Warren last year, Lord Chief Justice Widgery is reported to have said that it did not follow that if you run into a vehicle in front then you must be guilty of an offence. The imprudence of pleading guilty to an offence of this nature since that pronouncement was demonstrated in the case of Nicholson v Brown in January 1974.
In that case, a lorry driver had to brake suddenly when the line of vehicles in front was compelled to stop, but he was unable to avoid hitting the preceding vehicle. It was raining and snowing at the time and
lorry driver pleaded guilty to the charge of driving without due care and attention. The court was obliged to accept this plea though it took the view that it was unfortunate in view of what had been said in the Scott v Warren case.
Therefore, faced with the accepted plea of guilty the court could not act inconsistently and fail to endorse the licence.
Had the driver not pleaded guilty then the court would have been free to consider all the facts of the case and decide whether the driver was driving without due care and attention and convict, or whether he was not so driving and acquit him.