Finding the fault
Page 69
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JSI NG death by dangerous driving, dealt with in Section 1 he Road Traffic Act 1972, is the most serious traffic pnce a driver can commit, carrying as it does a maximum pity of five years imprisonment.
he offence was created because of the reluctance of juries to Act a driver of manslaughter, the charge which had to be erred before this special Section dealing with motoring cases available.
. manslaughter charge requires a greater degree of criminal ability and is, therefore, more difficult to prove. A Section 1 rice, on the other hand, is much more straightforward. The iecution need only prove dangerous driving and the fact that the ing was the cause of a death.
he Section reads: "A person who causes the death of another .on by the driving of a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a ,c:1 or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having ird to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, iition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is Jelly at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, he road, shall be guilty of an offence-.
1R v Guilfoyle (1973) RTR 272, the Court of Appeal dealt with policy of sentencing for offences under this Section and laid '11 the following guide lines:
Cases of this kind fall into two broad categories, firstly, those in zh the accident has arisen through momentary inattention or udgment, and, secondly, those in which the accused has driven manner which has shown a selfish disregard for the safety of )r road users or his passengers, or with a degree of recklessness. k sub-division of this category is provided by the cases in which 3ccident has been caused or contributed to by the accused's sum ption of alcohol or drugs.
Offenders can be categorised into those with good driving )rds and those with bad.
An offender convicted because of momentary inattention or judgment and with a good driving record should normally be d and disqualified from driving for a short period. If his driving )rd is indifferent, the period of disqualification should be longer, two to four years, and if it is bad he should be put off the road for ng time.
For those causing a fatal accident through a selfish regard for the ty of other road users, a custodial sentence with a long period of lualification may be appropriate and, if this kind of driving is pled with a bad driving record, the period of disqualification uld be such as will relieve the public of a potential danger for a v long time indeed.
The longer the period for which a driver is disqualified, the more iortant it is that he should be ordered to undergo a driving test pre he again obtains a full driving licence.
\ few examples of the types of sentences imposed by the courts of interest. In R v McCarthy (1964) Crim LR 330, a young man, d 20, with a first class record and in regular employment, drove )guar motor car at about 70 mph on a road with a 40 mph limit, control and caused a death. A fine of £50 was substituted for a tence of four months at a detention centre; a seven year lualification was upheld.
A man with previous convictions for traffic and driving offences, including one for careless driving, drove on sidelights only on the crown of a country road at night and killed a woman walking on his off-side in an unanticipated dark patch. He did not stop. A sentence of nine months' imprisonment and a ten year disqualification was upheld R v Challoner (1965)120.
In R v Mabley (1965) 109 Si 296, a learner driver aged 18 of excellent character caused a death through inexperience. There was no question of skylarking. A fine of £10 was substituted for a 'sentence of three months in a detention centre; a five year disqualification was upheld.
A man, aged 57, with no previous convictions, lost control of his lorry in consequence of repeatedly overtaking on a road where it was prohibited. He had taken drink beforehand. A sentence of 21 months imprisonment and two years disqualification was varied to nine months imprisonment and disqualification for ten years (R v Worrell (1965) Crim LR 561). • ' . . The charge of dangerous driving, dealt with in Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, is worded in exactly the same way as Section 1, except that the reference to causing a death is omitted.
This offence carries a maximum penalty of £400 or four months imprisonment, or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, six months and a £100 fine, or both.
What exactly is dangerous driving? One might think that any driving where there was an element of danger to other road users might be classed as dangerous, but this is not always the case.
Over the years there have been many appeals against convictions for dangerous driving and reports of these cases makes interesting reading.
An important case on this subject is R v Gosney (1971) 2 08 674. Here it was held that fault is an essential element in dangerous driving. In order to justify a conviction there must be not only a situation, which viewed objectively was dangerous, but there must also have been some fault on the part of the driver causing the situation.
-Fault" does not necessarily involve deliberate misconduct, or recklessness, or intention to drive in a manner inconsistent with proper standards of driving. Nor does fault necessarily involve moral blame.
Thus, there is a fault if an inexperienced or naturally poor driver, while straining every nerve to do the right thing, falls below the standard of a competent and experienced driver.
Fault involves a failure, a falling below the care of skill of a competent and experienced driver, in relation to the manner of driving and the relevant circumstances of the case.
A fault in that sense, even though it be slight, or a momentary lapse, or 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. Such a fault will often be sufficiently proved as an inference from the very facts of the situation. But if the driver seeks to avoid that inference, he may not be prevented from seeking so to do.
In the next article I will look at the various defences open to a driver charged with dangerous driving.