Dangerous Driving in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Attorney General's Reference (No. 4 of 2000); R v GC
    • Court of Appeal
    • 19 Mar 2001

    The essential limbs, as is common ground, do not require any specific intent to drive dangerously. Section 2A sets out a wholly objective test. The concept of what is obvious to a careful driver places the question of what constitutes dangerous driving within the province of the jury. It is the jury who should set the standard as to what is or what is not dangerous driving.

  • R v Nathan Jenkins
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Ene 2015

    It seems to us that the submission that the judge should not have passed consecutive sentences is correct. In R v Noble [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 65 consecutive sentences were passed for causing several deaths by dangerous driving in the same incident.

  • Re Attorney General's Reference (No.152 of 2002); R v Robert Charles Cooksley
    • Court of Appeal
    • 03 Abr 2003

    It is designed to protect road users in the future from an offender who had shown himself to be a real risk on the roads. The Panel suggests the risk represented by the offender is reflected in the level of culpability which attaches to his driving so that matters relevant to fixing the length of the driving disqualification for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving will be much the same as those factors we have listed already.

  • Milton v DPP
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 16 Mar 2007

    I cannot accept that section 2A(3) requires that a circumstance relating to a characteristic of the individual accused driver should be taken into account if it is unfavourable to him but cannot be taken into account if it is favourable. In my view, the favourability of the circumstance is irrelevant. Accordingly, it seems to me that the fact that the driver is a Grade 1 advanced police driver is a circumstance to which regard must be had, pursuant to section 2A(3).

    Mr Sullivan argued that, if exceptional driving skills are to be relevant to the issue of dangerousness, so will inexperience or previously demonstrated incompetence. He postulated that it would be open to the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused had failed his driving test on a number of occasions and at the time of the alleged offence had only recently passed it. Section 2A(3) appears to me to require that regard should be had to such circumstances.

  • R v Gosney
    • Court of Appeal
    • 05 Jul 1971

    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 that situation. Thus there is fault if an inexperienced or a naturally poor driver, while straining every nerve to do the right thing, falls below the standard of a competent and careful driver.

  • R v Lawrence (Stephen)
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Mar 1981

    So section 3 takes care of the kind of inattention or misjudgment to which the ordinarily careful motorist is occasionally subject without its necessarily involving any moral turpitude, although it causes inconvenience and annoyance to other users of the road.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results