Road Traffic Offences in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Krawec
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 26 November 1984

    In our judgment the unforeseen and unexpected results of the carelessness are not in themselves relevant to penalty. The primary considerations are the quality of the driving, the extent to which the appellant on the particular occasion fell below the standard of the reasonably competent driver; in other words, the degree of carelessness and culpability. The unforeseen consequences may sometimes be relevant to those considerations.

  • R v Simmonds
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 22 January 1999

    In the context of a statutory regime for road traffic offences that envisages the causing of death as a factor leading to an enhanced statutory sentencing bracket, and in a context in which, where such offences are considered, the courts regard additional deaths as an aggravating factor ( Boswell (supra), R v Toombs [1997] 2 Cr App R (S) 217) we find the concept of a road traffic offence in which the sentencing court is obliged to disregard the fact that a death has been caused as wholly anomalous.

    Krawec was clearly valid in its context and at its time, but we do not see it as of assistance to sentencing courts in the different context of today. Whilst culpability or criminality remains the primary consideration this Court has concluded that Judge McNicholl was entitled to bear in mind that he was dealing with an offence that had led to death.

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

  • R v Paul Maurice Needham and Others
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 28 April 2016

    In the ordinary run of cases, however, we would expect a more arithmetical approach to apply so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament. Whilst section 35B is couched in language which recognises judicial discretion, we consider and anticipate that in those cases the court would make the section 35B adjustment or uplift in a way which ensures that the full period of disqualification is served outside custody.

  • Attorney General's Reference (Nos. 14 and 24 of 1993); R v Shepherd; R v Wernet
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 17 December 1993

    The Road Traffic Act 1991 created two new offences by way of amendment of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 1 of the 1991 Act substituted for sections 1 and 2 of the 1988 Act the new offence of causing death by dangerous driving, thereby replacing the offence of causing death by reckless driving. At one time earlier in the somewhat chequered history of road traffic offences there had been an offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

  • Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline)
    • Privy Council
    • 05 December 2000

    The Court has also recognised the need for a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the personal rights of the individual, the search for which balance has been described as inherent in the whole of the Convention: see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 35, at paragraph 69 of the judgment; Sheffield and Horsham v. United Kingdom (1998) 27 EHRR, 163, at paragraph 52 of the judgment.

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