R v Hart, Millar and Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE FENTON ATKINSON |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J1209-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 2050/69 No. 2051/69 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 09 December 1969 |
and
[1969] EWCA Crim J1209-2
Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson
Lord Justice Megaw
and
Mr. Justice Crichton
No. 2050/69
and
No. 2051/69
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. G. WRIGHT appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
MR. R. BINGHAM, Q.C. and MR. A. BOOTH appeared on behalf of the Crown.
These appeals and applications, which will be refused, arise out of a very terrible accident which occurred on Thursday the 6th June of last year when a heavy lorry and trailer laden with 18 tons of bricks was travelling north upon the M6 motorway at about 45 miles per hour driven by a man called Hart. At a point in Lancashire near Newton-le-Willows the front offside tyre of the lorry blew out. Hart lost control, his vehicle swung to the right across the central reservation, it crashed into a motor car which was travelling south - that is to say coming from the opposite direction - and all six occupants of that car (the two grandparents, the two parents and the two children, the entire family in fact) were killed.
Examination of Hart's vehicle showed certain quite serious defects in the brakes of the trailer, but those defects could not be said to be a cause of the accident. The examination revealed beyond all doubt that, although five of the tyres on the lorry were in perfectly good condition, the front offside tyre was extremely badly worn: it was manifestly in a dangerous state and should never have been on the road.
Hart was charged with causing death by dangerous driving of all six persons. It was not suggested that the actual manner of his driving was of itself dangerous, or that he could have done any better than he did once this tyre burst. The case against him was founded on the case of R. v. Spurge, namely, that he was driving this heavy vehicle at speed with a tyre which he must have known (and, indeed, did know very well) was in a dangerous state: and to drive a vehicle of that weight at any speed with that tyre with that knowledge was manifestly dangerous in the view of this Court.
His own evidence made it clear that he knew of the defective state of the tyre: he said he had complained about it more than once to his employers with no result, but he had gone on this trip thinking the tyre might stand up to one more trip. His journey on this occasion started from Bridge of Weir, which is about 14 miles west of Glasgow; he travelled down into England to Newark to deliver a load; from there he went to Keele in Staffordshire, where he picked up a load of some 18 tons of bricks; and then he was to travel north back to Bridge of Weir.
He was found guilty by the jury on all six counts, and he was leniently treated by the learned Judge by means of a modest fine and disqualification, the trial Judge taking the view (as we think rightly) that the real major responsibility for this disaster lay elsewhere. Hart was at the material time employed by the appellant company Robert Millar (Contractors) Limited, who owned the vehicle, and that company had three directors. The appellant (Mr. Robert Millar) was the Managing Director. On his own evidence he was the man responsible for the day-to-day running of the business: the other directors were his father (now semi-retired) and an uncle (who still works in the business in some capacity). But, as Robert Millar accepted in evidence, he was the man who gave the orders at the material time.
After a five-day trial at Liverpool Crown Court before Mr. Justice Fisher and & jury Robert Millar and the company were found guilty of counseling and procuring these six offences of causing death by dangerous driving; the case against them being that Robert Millar sent Hart out on this trip with this vehicle knowing full well that the front offside tyre was in a dangerous state. In the result the company was fined £750 and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, and Robert Millar was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
Before turning to questions of law which have been raised by Mr. Wright, there was an important factual issue before the jury. The case for this appellant was that, in fact, six new tyres had been bought for this particular vehicle and fitted to it some three weeks before the accident, sometime during the month of May. The suggestion made to Hart by Mr. Wright in cross-examination was that at some stage after setting out on the fatal journey he had stolen the tyre, and possibly also the wheel, substituting this worn-out dangerous and defective tyre. Hart firmly denied that allegation. He said that four new tyres had been fitted to the rear wheels some three weeks or so before the accident and that a little later a new front nearside tyre had been fitted, but he said that the offside front wheel tyre had not been replaced, although he had complained about it.
In resolving this issue of fact the jury had evidence before them that Robert Millar had gone down the day after the accident, and he had gone to the Police Station at a place called Charnock Richard where the Police had the wheel and the tyre concerned: and it must at that stage have been perfectly clear to him that the allegation was that the bursting of this front offside tyre on the vehicle owned by his company had been responsible for killing six people. But, on the evidence, he made no suggestion at that stage (or, indeed, at any time before the trial) to the Police of any change having been made by Hart to the new tyre fitted to the front offside wheel. When he was cross-examined by Mr. Booth at the trial he said he did not even trouble to examine the wheel to see if it was the same wheel. Furthermore, although Hart had returned for some period after the accident to employment with the same company, Millar agreed that at no stage had he said a word to Hart about this possible theft and substitution: though presumably it would have been the best answer for him on any criminal charge to be able to find out what had happened to the new tyre which he claimed had been fitted shortly before the accident; and if it was true that he really thought that six new tyres were on that vehicle when it set out on that journey it does seem to the Court incredible that he would have said nothing at the time to the Police or later on to Hart. On reading the evidence one sees that none of the witnesses called for the defense - and that included David and John Millar (John Millar being the son of the appellant) who worked as mechanics in the business, or a mechanic called Conerey - had any knowledge that Hart had stolen the new tyre some time in the course of the journey.
In the view of this Court, on reading all the relevant evidence (as we have done) and, particularly, the cross-examination of Mr. Robert Millar, the jury were fully justified in rejecting the suggestion made against Hart and in deciding that the vehicle was sent out on that trip with a defective and dangerous front offside tyre and that Mr. Robert Millar must have known all about it.
The trial ended on the 24th February 1969. On the 3rd December (in the middle of last week) notice was given of an intention to apply to call fresh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Giorgianni v R
-
R (Purdy) v DPP
...commenced abroad that results in harm in England and Wales is triable in the Crown Court: see, e g, R v Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd [1970] 2 QB 54, a case mentioned by Professor Hirst, at p 338, in support of the proposition that if B commits an offence in England with the encouragement......
-
Omar Scott v Director of Public Prosecutions
...liability may only be established when the commission of the principal offence has been proved ( R v Robert Millar (Contractors Ltd) [1970] 2 QB 54, 72F–73D and authorities cited there). As I have already set out, an offence under section 45 does not depend on the commission of any other 1......
-
DPP v Doot
...on which English criminal law is applied has been considered: Treacy 1971 Appeal Cases, 537 (making a demand), Robert Millar Ltd. 1970 2 Queen's Bench 54 (aiding and abetting) and Baxter 1972 1 Queen's Bench 1 (attempt); but none of these throws light on the unique offence of conspiracy w......
-
The Contribution of Complicity
...differentiates enough to obvious ly capturethe wrongdoing they purport to prohibit.159. For example, R v Robert Millar (Contractors Ltd) [1970] 2 QB 54, 72–73.10. R v Gianetto [1997] Cr App R 1.11. A Ashworth, ‘The Elasticity of Mens Rea’in CFH Tapper (ed), Crime, Proof and Punishment: Essa......
-
The Contribution of Complicity
...differentiates enough to obvious ly capturethe wrongdoing they purport to prohibit.159. For example, R v Robert Millar (Contractors Ltd) [1970] 2 QB 54, 72–73.10. R v Gianetto [1997] Cr App R 1.11. A Ashworth, ‘The Elasticity of Mens Rea’in CFH Tapper (ed), Crime, Proof and Punishment: Essa......
-
CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER REVIEWED
...to accept that a corporate body was capable of being convicted of manslaughter. He did not refer to Robert Miller (Contractors) Ltd[1970] 2 QB 54 where the Court of Appeal considered that a company can be guilty of aiding and abetting 252 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REGULATORY LAW & PRACTI......