Careless Driving Causing Death
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300622 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Careless
Driving
Causing
Death
court, for any resulting injustice), for it was true that this was really 'a
claim for compensation dressed up as an application for an award of
costs', which explains
why
the Act of 1988 (requiring proof of 'serious
default'),
not
the 1981 Act, was relevant.
It
is to be remarked that, although Owen Jhad apparently considered
that the appellant had been lucky to escape conviction, the members of
the court variously stated that the conclusion which they had reached
in the present proceedings was 'intrinsically unfair', as the appellant
had apparently been 'treated unfairly', so that it was with 'unfeigned
reluctance' that Ward U declared himself to be 'compelled' to the
conclusion which the court reached.
It
may be
thought
that
the appel-
lant is
not
the only person
who
will conclude that the decision which the
court was constrained to reach is grossly unjust
and
that
the fact that the
'hardship' caused by
the
statutory law on the subject was remarked on
almost acentury ago is little solace to
the
sufferer of that injustice. The
fact that aperson acquitted of all the charges against him can end up
with a loss of more
than
£10,000 as a result of part of the process which
the State has launched against him cannot fail to appear to be an
injustice. The fact that this injustice is more
than
acentury old in
the
law
aggravates, rather
than
mitigates, the
harm
done.
Careless Driving Causing Death
Rv
Simmonds
[1999] 2 Cr App R 18
Amotorist driving along a road in good driving conditions, although it
was dark
and
the
road was
unknown
to him, missed his tum-off to the
motorway
and
wished to change direction, turning back along the road
by which he had come to that point. In order to get back to his proposed
course, he
turned
his car left into a wide entrance with a view to turn-
ing right in an arc to cross the carriageway by which he
had
reached
that spot
and
so
on
to the opposite carriageway which would bring him
back in
the
direction opposite to that he had been following. He at-
tempted to do so
without
stopping
and
collided with a
motor
cyclist
who
had originally been following him. The cyclist died within hours from
the
injuries he had received. The motorist was charged with causing
death by dangerous driving,
but
the prosecution accepted a plea ofguilty
of
the
lesser offence of careless driving. On conviction, he was fined
£1,000 with
an
order for £150 costs
and
he was disqualified for 12
months. He appealed against sentence, primarily in order to dispute his
disqualification.
His principal ground of appeal was
that
the
judge
had
been in error, as
a
matter
of legal principle, in taking
undue
account of the fact that the
consequence of
the
collision,
and
therefore of his careless driving, had
been the death of the cyclist. Henry U summed up
the
principle which
was involved in
the
.appeal in the words,
'whether
sentencing courts
should take into account criminality alone, or
both
criminality
and
the
consequence, of
the
offence in question and, in the latter event, in
what
559
To continue reading
Request your trial