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

R v Hart, Millar and Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd

The Law Reports Weekly Law Reports Cited in 31 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1969
CourtQueen's Bench Division
[COURT OF APPEAL] REGINA v. ROBERT MILLAR (CONTRACTORS) LTD. REGINA v. MILLAR

1969 Feb. 24 1969 Dec. 8, 9

Fisher J. Fenton Atkinson and Megaw L.JJ. and Crichton J.

Road Traffic - Dangerous driving - Causing death by - Mechanical defect - Knowledge of defect by employer of driver - Whether capable of constituting offence of counselling and procuring dangerous driving. - Crime - Practice - Venue - Aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving - Driving of vehicle in dangerous condition from Scotland to England counselled and procured by owner and employer in Scotland - Death resulting from accident in England - Whether owner and employer triable in England for counselling and procuring causing death by dangerous driving. - Crime - Aiding and abetting - Continuing offence - Causing death by dangerous driving.

The appellants, a limited company with its registered office and place of business in Scotland, and M., a director of the company, were charged in England with aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring the causing of the death of six people by dangerous driving. M. had instructed an employee of the appellant company to drive a lorry belonging to the company from Scotland to England. The front offside tyre of the lorry, as both M. and the employee well knew, was in a defective and dangerous condition. Whilst the employee was driving along a motorway at some speed in England, the tyre “blew out” and caused a head-on collision between the lorry and a motor car on the other carriageway of the motorway, killing the six occupants of the motor car. Before arraignment the appellants put in written pleas to the jurisdiction of the English court but those pleas were refused by the judge. Both the company and M. were convicted. On appeal, on the grounds that where the dangerous driving alleged arose not from the manner of the driving but by reason of some defect in the vehicle, there could be no such offence as counselling and procuring the causing of death by dangerous driving; and that the offence was completed when the driver set out from his Scottish base and was not therefore triable before an English court:—

Held, dismissing the appeals, (1) that the appellants, having instructed their employee to drive a heavy vehicle knowing that it had a dangerously defective tyre and that there was a serious risk of harm resulting to other road users, were guilty of counselling and procuring the causing of death by dangerous driving of persons killed in an accident caused by the bursting of the tyre (post, p. 72C–F).

Reg. v. Spurge [1961] 2 Q.B. 205; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 23; [1961] 2 All E.R. 688, C.C.A. applied.

(2) That the appellants were guilty, not of some self-subsisting crime, but of participating in the crime committed by the principal offender, namely, causing death by dangerous driving which was committed ia England by their employee and, accordingly, they were properly tried in England; and further that the counselling and procuring was a continuing act persisting until the occurrence of the accident and therefore was in the event in the present circumstances properly tried in England (post, pp. 73G–74A).

Decision of Fisher J. (post, p. 56E) affirmed.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the Court of Appeal:

Reg. v. Buck and Buck (1960) 44 Cr.App.R. 213, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Creamer [1966] 1 Q.B. 72; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 583; [1965] 3 All E.R. 257, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Spurge [1961] 2 Q.B. 205; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 23; [1961] 2 All E.R. 688, C.C.A.

The following additional cases were cited in argument before the Court of Appeal.

Athanassiadis v. Government of Greece (Note) [1969] 3 W.L.R. 544; [1969] 3 All E.R. 293, H.L.(E.).

Gould & Co. Ltd. v. Houghton [1921] 1 K.B. 509, D.C.

Parker's Case (1650) 2 Dy. 186.

Reg. v. Blandford [1955] 1 W.L.R. 331; [1955] 1 All E.R. 681, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Ellis [1899] 1 Q.B. 230.

Reg. v. Harden [1963] 1 Q.B. 8; [1962] 2 W.L.R. 553; [1962] 1 All E.R. 286, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Lewis (1857) 7 Cox 277; Dears. & B. 182.

Reg. v. Peters (1886) 16 Q.B.D. 636.

Reg. v. Rogers (1877) 3 Q.B.D. 28.

Reg. v. Treadgold (1878) 14 Cox C.C. 220; 39 L.T. 291.

Rex v. Brisac (1803) 4 East 164.

Rex v. Coombes (1785) 1 Leach 388.

Rex v. De Marny [1907] 1 K.B. 388.

Rex v. Easterby & McFarlane (1802) Russ. & Ry. 37; 2 Leach 947.

Rex v. Munton (1793) 1 Esp. 62.

Rex v. Oliphant [1905] 2 K.B. 67.

Thambiah v. The Queen [1966] A.C. 37; [1966] 2 W.L.R. 81; [1965] 3 All E.R. 661, P.C.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Fisher J.:

Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler [1898] A.C. 200, H.L.(E.).

Briess v. Woolley [1954] A.C. 333; [1954] 2 W.L.R. 832; [1954] 1 All E.R. 909, H.L.(E.).

Cordova Land Co. Ltd. v. Victor Brothers Inc. [1966] 1 W.L.R. 793.

Monro (George) Ltd. v. American Cyanamid and Chemical Corpn. [1944] K.B. 432; [1944] 1 All E.R. 386, C.A.

Reg. v. Lewis (1857) 7 Cox 277; Dears. & B. 182.

Reg. v. Rogers (1877) 3 Q.B.D. 28.

Reg. v. Spurge [1961] 2 Q.B. 205; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 23; [1961] 2 All E.R. 688, C.C.A.

Rex v. De Marny [1907] 1 K.B. 388.

Rex v. De Mattos (1836) 7 C. & P. 458.

Rex v. Depardo (1807) Russ. & Ry. 134.

Rex v. Munton (1793) 1 Esp. 62.

Rex v. Oliphant [1905] 2 K.B. 67.

Rex v. Stoddart (1909) 2 Cr.App.R. 217, C.C.A.

APPEALS from Fisher J.

On February 24, 1969, the appellants, Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd. and Robert Millar, were convicted at the Liverpool Crown Court on six counts of aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring causing death by dangerous driving. The appellant, Robert Millar, lived at Bridge of Weir, Scotland, and the appellant company, Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd., of which he was a director, was registered at Bridge of Weir also. The appellant Robert Millar had on June 5, 1968, instructed an employee of the company, one Anthony Hart, to drive a heavily laden lorry south into England. On the return journey the next day, whilst the lorry was being driven north on the M6 motorway near Newton-le-Willows in Lancashire, the front offside tyre burst, with the result that the lorry crashed through the central reservation on the motorway and collided head-on with a motor car travelling south. The six occupants of the motor car were killed. The driver was tried and convicted on six counts of causing death by dangerous driving at the same time as the appellants: he did not appeal against that conviction. Before arraignment on the indictments both appellants entered written pleas to the jurisdiction of the English court on the grounds that any acts of aiding and abetting were committed in Scotland.

Alan Booth for the Crown.

Gerard Wright for Robert Millar and Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd.

J. Rhys Arthur for Anthony Hart.

FISHER J. The charges against Anthony Hart, Robert Millar and Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd. in this indictment are that Anthony Hart caused the death of six people by driving in a manner dangerous to the public and that Robert Millar and Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd. aided and abetted, counselled and procured those offences.

Mr. Wright, on behalf of Robert Millar and Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd., has put in a plea to the jurisdiction of the court and he has quite correctly done so at this stage of the trial before the defendants have been arraigned. The plea reads as follows in the case of the defendant company:

“Robert Millar (Contractors) Ltd. say that the court ought not to take cognisance of the indictment against them because: The court has no jurisdiction to try the defendants on charges of being an aider and abettor … when the acts of aiding and abetting counselling and procuring alleged in the indictment if committed were committed outside the jurisdiction of the court namely in Scotland where the defendants' registered office and place of business is situated.”

The plea in the case of the defendant Robert Millar reads:

“… the court ought not to take cognisance of the indictment against me because: There is no evidence in the depositions of any act or omission by me committed within the jurisdiction and therefore the court has no jurisdiction to try me on the charges laid in the indictment.”

In order to make the plea intelligible, I should state shortly what is alleged against the defendants. Before I do that, I should say that Alfred George Keats, the clerk of the court, has joined issue on behalf of the Queen with that plea.

The charge arises out of a terrible accident on the M6 Motorway when an articulated lorry crossed the central reservation to the other carriageway and struck a vehicle and killed six people. It is alleged that the cause of the accident, while it may or may not have included any particular manner of driving by the driver, was the state of one of the front tyres of the lorry which was in a bad condition and which burst, causing the vehicle to career out of control across the motorway as I have described. It is also said that the accident was aggravated, if not caused, by the improper state of the brakes of the trailer and it is said that the driver knew of the state of the front tyre and knew or ought to have known of the state of the brakes.

It might be thought that the words of section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which make driving in a manner dangerous to the public an offence, were directed against the manner in which the person driving the vehicle handled the vehicle on the road and that it was not an offence under this section to drive a vehicle which was by reason of its mechanical condition likely to break down or become out of control and so give rise to danger; but it has been held by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Reg. v. Spurge [1961] 2 Q.B. 205 that it is an offence under the section dealing with driving in a manner dangerous to the public to drive a vehicle on a road if it is in a mechanical condition such that it may become out of control and thereby give rise to injury to members of the public. It was held that if the driver...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases

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