R v Reid
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 October 1992 |
| Date | 29 October 1992 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Road Traffic - Reckless driving - Causing death by - Direction to jury - Whether specimen direction appropriate - Whether subjective or objective test to be applied -
At the defendant's trial at the the Crown Court for causing death by reckless driving, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as substitutedF1 (since re-enacted in section 1 of the
On appeal by the defendant: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, that in the context of the offence of reckless driving, “recklessness” could not be restricted to a subjective test, but included heedlessness of the presence of a risk as well as disregard of a recognised risk; and that it was not always necessary to direct the jury precisely in the terms of Lord Diplock's specimen direction in Reg. v. Lawrence, but that it should be regarded as epitomising the law and as a model to be adapted to suit the circumstances of each case (post, pp. 795F–H, 796C, E, 797A–B, 801B, 804E–G, 805G–H, 806H, 807C–D, 812C, 813G–H, 814H, 815A–C, 816F–G, 818H–819A, H–820A).
The following cases are referred to in the opinions of their Lordships:
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [
Reg. v. Caldwell [
Reg. v. Evans [
Reg. v. Kimber [
Reg. v. Lawrence (Stephen) [
Reg. v. Madigan [
Reg. v. Murphy (William) [
Reg. v. Pigg [
Reg. v. Stephenson [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Allan v. Patterson [
Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Newbury [
Elliott v. C. [
Labone v. Litherland Urban District Council [
Midland Silicones Ltd. v. Scruttons Ltd. [
Reg. v. Conway [
Reg. v. Crossman [
Reg. v. Cunningham [
Reg. v. Hancock [
Reg. v. Khan (Mohammed Iqbal) [
Reg. v. Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd. [
Reg. v. Morgan [
Reg. v. Nuri [
Reg. v. Parmenter [
Reg. v. Parker (Daryl) [
Reg. v. R. (Stephen Malcolm) (
Reg. v. Satnam S. (
Reg. v. Sharp (
Reg. v. Shivpuri [
Reg. v. Spencer [
Reg. v. Staines (
Reg. v. Tolson (
Reg. v. Tutton (
Reg. v. Vale of Glamorgan Juvenile Justices, Ex parte Beattie (
Reg. v. Venna [
Sansregret v. The Queen (
Sweet v. Parsley [
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
This was an appeal by leave, granted on 27 November 1991, of the House of Lords (Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Ackner and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle) by the defendant, John Joseph Reid, from the judgment dated 11 July 1989 (reasons being given on 28 September 1989), of the Court of Appeal (Mustill L.J. and Nolan and Saville JJ.) (
On 19 July 1991 the Court of Appeal certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision to dismiss the appeal, namely:
“(1) In a case of reckless driving, should the jury be directed in the terms of the the ipsissima verba of Lord Diplock's suggested instruction to the jury from Reg. v. Lawrence [
1982 ]A.C. 510 , 526–527, without modification? (2) If the answer to question 1 be ‘No,’ in what other terms should the jury be directed?”
The facts are stated in the opinion of Lord Ackner.
Michael Hill Q.C. and Graham Cooke for the defendant.
R. Alun Jones Q.C. and Samuel Parrish for the Crown.
Their Lordships took time for consideration.
20 July. LORD KEITH OF KINKEL. My Lords, the question principally debated at the hearing of this appeal was whether the formulation by Lord Diplock in Reg. v. Lawrence [
In common with my noble and learned friends, Lord Ackner and Lord Goff of Chieveley, I am satisfied that, for the reasons they give, the argument is unsound. Lord Diplock described the actus reus of the offence as driving a vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damage to property. The important thing here is that the risk created must be an obvious and serious one. No criticism has been or could be made of that. The precise state of mind of a person who drives in the manner indicated must in the vast majority of cases be quite incapable of ascertainment. Absence of something from a person's mind is as much part of his state of mind as its presence. Inadvertence to risk is no less a subjective state of mind than is disregard of a recognised risk. If there is nothing to go upon apart from what actually happened, the natural inference is that the driver's state of mind was one or other of those described by Lord Diplock. It would, however, be quite impossible for any juryman to say which it was, and in particular for him to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was the first state of mind rather than the second. So logically, if only the first state of mind constituted the relevant mens rea, it would be impossible ever to get a conviction. There is no room for doubt, in my opinion, that a large proportion of drivers who drive in such a manner as to create the relevant sort of risk do so without giving any thought to the possibility of risk. Indeed, the very attempt to exclude such drivers from the ambit of the statutory offence recognises that this must be so. Driving a motor vehicle is potentially an extremely dangerous activity, requiring a high degree of self-discipline. Those who fail to display the requisite degree of self-discipline through failing to give any thought to the possibility of the serious risks they are creating may reasonably be regarded as no less blameworthy than those who consciously appreciate a risk but nevertheless go on to take it. The word “reckless” in its ordinary meaning is apt to embrace the former category no less than the latter, and I feel no doubt that Parliament by its use intended to cover both of them.
The substance of Lord Diplock's formulation of a specimen jury direction is accordingly apt, in my opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Public Prosecutor v Zulkifli bin Omar
-
Douglas (Eaton) v R
...flexible approach seems to have found favour with their Lordships in R v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Alves (1993) A.C. 284 H.L. per Lord Goff at p. 291. 87 In the instant case the prosecution in accordance with the proper procedure took the intermediate step of inviting that wi......
-
Melvina Frett-Henry Appellant v [1] Tortola Concrete Ltd [2] Clayton Smithen Respondents
...Services, The Times, 18th November 1964. 22 Ibid, per Cairns L.J. 23 Per Parker L.J. in Wright v Lodge [1993] R.T.R. 123 at 128K. 24 See R v Reid [1992] 1 W.L.R. 793 (H.L.) per Lord Keith. This was a case of causing death by reckless driving before the law was repealed. The Road Traffic A......
- The State v Singh (Clement)
-
Recklessness—The Continuing Search for a Definition
...defend-ant for any of the same reasons had not given it any thought he would34 Note the judgments of Lords Goff and Ackner in R v Reid [1992] 3 All ER 673where they consider that directions such as the model direction should be adaptedto fit the facts of a particular case and should be cap......
-
Lawmakers, Law Lords and Legal Fault: Two Tales from the (Thames) River Bank: Sexual Offences Act 2003; R v G and Another
...78 Cr App Rep 276.27 (1889) 16 Cox’s Criminal Cases 62.28 [2000] 2 WLR 452 at 456.29 See below n. 32. Their Lordships in Rv Reid [1992] 3 All ER 673 had been invited,but declined, to overrule the unanimous decision of the House of Lords in RvLawrence [1981] 1 All ER 974, delivered on the sa......
-
Doctors Are Aggrieved—Should They Be? Gross Negligence Manslaughter and the Culpable Doctor
...keeping with Lord Hewart’s requirement for demonstrable mens rea in R v Bateman (n 11).72. Moore and Hurd (n 54) at 192. Also R v Reid [1992] 3 All ER 673.73. The following extract from the American Model Penal Code (MPC) illustrates a convergence among Anglo-American jur-isdictions of what......
-
Criminal Law
...333 of 1987) which is the equivalent of s 66 of the RTA. The court there applied the definition given by the House of Lords in R v Reid[1992] 1 WLR 793; [1992] 3 All ER 673 at 693 (‘Reid’) that: [A person is reckless if] he recogni[s]ed that there was some risk of that kind involved, but ne......