Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

2014-01-01

Document Cited authorities 16 Cited in Related
Vincent
AuthorFiona Raitt,Findlay Stark,ElizabethJaneen CrawfordCarruthers,PamelaClaire FergusonMcDiarmid,Dominic Scullion,Paul Scott,Philip Glover,Stephen Bogle,Lorna Richardson,Michelle Lafferty,Chris Himsworth,Elspeth Reid,Iain Jamieson
Pages84-149
Published date01 January 2014
DOI10.3366/elr.2014.0188
Date01 January 2014
<p>In 2006 several new offences were added to the <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/road-traffic-act-1988-808043217">Road Traffic Act 1988</a>, one of which was section 3ZB<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-1"><sup>1</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-1"><label>1</label><p>Added by the <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/road-safety-act-2006-808221497">Road Safety Act 2006, s 21(1)</a>, in force from 18 August 2008.</p></fn>. Headed “Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers”, this provides <disp-quote> <p>A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he <italic>causes the death</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-2"><sup>2</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-2"><label>2</label><p>Emphasis added.</p></fn> of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road and, at the time when he is driving, the circumstances are such that he is … (a) … driving [without a valid] licence<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-3"><sup>3</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-3"><label>3</label><p>Contrary to the <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/road-traffic-act-1988-808043217">Road Traffic Act 1988, s 87(1)</a>.</p></fn> … (b) … driving while disqualified<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-4"><sup>4</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-4"><label>4</label><p>Ibid, s 103(1)(b).</p></fn> … or (c) … using a motor vehicle while uninsured<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-5"><sup>5</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-5"><label>5</label><p>Ibid, s 143.</p></fn> …</p> </disp-quote> The maximum penalty for this offence is two years’ imprisonment.<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-6"><sup>6</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-6"><label>6</label><p>Or a fine, or both, see <span class="vid_spn">Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s 33</span> and sch 2, para 1.</p></fn> In <italic>R</italic> v <italic>Hughes</italic><xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1-7"><sup>7</sup></xref><fn id="fn1-7"><label>7</label><p><a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/r-v-hughes-818730829">[2013] 1 WLR 2461</a>.</p></fn> the Supreme Court interpreted this in a way which is fairer to the accused than in previous cases, and in accordance with common sense views of causation. This note describes the previous position and summarises the Supreme Court's ruling.</p> CASES PRIOR TO <italic>HUGHES</italic>

Both the English Court of Appeal and the Scottish High Court had previously interpreted section 3ZB strictly, such that the prosecution did not require to prove that the accused's driving was at fault. Thus in R v Williams,8

[2011] 1 WLR 588.

in which the accused had been driving whilst uninsured and without a licence, the prosecution accepted that no fault whatsoever attached to his manner of driving. The victim had climbed over the central reservation of a dual carriageway and, without looking, stepped in front of the accused's car. According to the Court of Appeal, the meaning to be given to “causes the death” was dependent on Parliament's intention in enacting section 3ZB. Referring to the interpretation given to this phrase in relation to the offence of “causing death by dangerous driving”,9

Road Traffic Act 1988 s 1.

 the court noted that driving had been held to be a cause of death in such cases so long as its contribution to the fatality had been “more than negligible or de minimis”.10

R v Williams [2011] 1 WLR 588 at para 33 per Thomas LJ, referring to R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133.

 Thus it concluded:11

Williams at paras 33–34.

We do not think that Parliament can have intended any different definition for section 3ZB … it is difficult to conceive of any other intention of Parliament than that if a person drove unlicensed or uninsured, he would be liable for death that was caused by his driving however much the victim might be at fault; it was therefore sufficient that the cause was not negligible.

 It was therefore open to a jury to hold that the mere fact that a vehicle which was involved in a fatality was being driven by the accused when he was uninsured (etc) was a sufficient causal link

Williams was followed by the Scottish High Court in Rai v HM Advocate.12

[2011] HCJAC 105, [2012] SCL 283.

The accused was driving on a motorway when he was both disqualified and uninsured, having taken the wheel because the designated driver felt tired. It seems that the victim, who was knocked down and then run over by the accused, had been walking on the carriageway of the motorway. Several other vehicles drove over his body as it lay on the road. Rai was convicted under section 3ZB and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. A commentary on this...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT