Jamie Rai Aka Jagdev Singh Rai V. Her Majesty's Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Clarke,Lord Wheatley,Lady Smith |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] HCJAC 105 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Published date | 26 October 2011 |
| Year | 2011 |
| Date | 26 October 2011 |
| APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY | |
| Lord Clarke Lady Smith Lord Wheatley | [2011] HCJAC 105 Appeal No: NO. XC832/10 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD CLARKE in APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE by JAMIE RAI Appellant; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______ |
Appellant: F Connor, Advocate; John Pryde & Co, Edinburgh
Respondent: A Prentice, Solicitor/Advocate; Crown Agent
26 October 2011
[1] The appellant pled guilty at Dumfries Sheriff Court to charges of having, on 27 July 2010, used and driven a motor vehicle while uninsured and disqualified from driving in contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 143(1) and (2) and the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 103(1)(b). After trial he was also found guilty by the jury of a third charge, namely that:
"On 27 July 2010 on a road, namely A74(M) Glasgow to Carlisle road, south bound carriageway, he did cause the death of Raju Gurbaskh Singh by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely motor van registered number KN03 VLR and at the time you were driving, the circumstances were such that you were committing an offence under section 103(1)(b) (driving while disqualified) and section 143 (using motor vehicle while uninsured against third party risks) of the aftermentioned Act; CONTRARY to the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 3 ZB."
The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence in relation to the last mentioned charge and against sentence in relation to charge 2.
[2] The circumstances in which the offences arose were as follows. On the 27 July 2010, in the hours of darkness, the appellant had been driving a vehicle on the south bound carriageway of the M74 motorway. He had been one of a team of caterers who had been engaged to cater for a wedding in Glasgow. He was on his way back home with others to Birmingham. He took over the driving of the vehicle in question because the person designated to drive it had felt tired.
[3] The deceased had been a guest at that wedding. He, too, resided in England and was being driven back there along with other family members. An argument had apparently developed between himself and members of the family travelling in the car with him. He got out of the car with the intention, apparently, to walk home to Wallsend. He found himself on the south bound carriageway of M74. The deceased was wearing a Rolex watch at the time.
[4] At a point when the appellant was driving his vehicle at a speed no more than 60 miles per hour his vehicle was felt to collide with something. The passengers in the vehicle thought that it had hit an animal on the road. The appellant pulled the vehicle on to the hard shoulder. A lorry driver, driving on the same section of the roadway, at the same time on the night in question, noticed a van in front of him swerve from one lane to another. The lorry driver then heard five loud thuds and he thought he had driven over a deer or a stag. Other drivers on the road at about the same time that night spoke to seeing or going over something lying on the road. Most of these drivers got out of their vehicles to check what had happened. They discovered limbs and other body parts. Police officers were called and came to the scene. The body parts were those of the deceased. A post mortem held that the deceased's death was caused by multiple vehicles colliding with him. A major scene of crime investigation was carried out by the police. A Rolex watch was found near the vehicle which the appellant had been driving.
[5] A collision investigation police officer, PC Parker, gave evidence at the appellant's trial. He had carried out an inspection of the locus. He had examined the appellant's van. He found what he considered to be human hair embedded in the front of the van. It was his opinion that the appellant's vehicle had collided with a human body. The epicentre of the collision was too high up for it to have been a deer or some other animal which had collided with the appellant's vehicle. If the vehicle had been travelling at 50 to 60 miles per hour at the collision, there would have been massive injuries to the person concerned. That person would have been propelled on to the carriageway. There were no signs of dead or injured animals at or about the locus. A piece of metal trim found on the carriageway fitted the appellant's van. A dent on the vehicle was consistent with the deceased's watch strap shattering and being projected on to the carriageway in a line consistent with the direction of travel of the body. The location of the body parts and blood was consistent with the body having been propelled on to the carriageway from its collision with the van. As well as giving the evidence just outlined, Police Constable Parker told the court that he had examined the body at the locus. A mark on the wrist of the deceased was consistent with the deceased having worn the watch, the face of which was recovered from the scene. The dent in the van corresponded to the space between the two prongs on the watch face to which the shattered strap had been attached. Another police officer, PC Alan Hope who was an advanced collision investigator also attended the scene of the accident and he spoke to examining the deceased's skull and noticing that there was a missing tuft of hair from the deceased's hair. Most significantly, the police officers who completed the collision investigation report, and then gave evidence at the trial, were of the opinion from the measurements they took, and the markings on the vehicle, that the deceased had been hit by the appellant's vehicle when the deceased was upright. The examination of other vehicles which had stopped at the locus indicated that these vehicles had run over the deceased's body when the body was lying on the road, which contrasted with the evidence as to his position when it was hit by the appellant's vehicle.
[6] The live issue at the trial was whether the appellant had caused the death of the deceased in terms of section 3 ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In Regina v Williams [2011] 1 WLR 588 the Court of Appeal held that the offence in question could be committed without any fault or other blameworthy conduct on the part of the accused in relation to his driving of the vehicle and that the simple question to be decided at trial was whether the death had been caused by driving while without insurance or without a licence or disqualified. The court also held that the meaning of "cause" in section 3ZB was to be determined in the context of the intention of Parliament which was that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v HM Advocate
...[2010] EWCA Crim 2552; [2011] 1 WLR 588; [2011] 3 All ER 969; (2010) 174 JP 606; [2011] RTR 36; [2011] Crim LR 471 Rai v HM Advocate [2011] HCJAC 105; 2012 SCCR 591; 2012 SCL 283; 2011 GWD 37–772 Reedie v HM Advocate [2005] HCJAC 55; 2005 SLT 742; 2005 SCCR 407 Justiciary — Statutory offenc......
-
2014-01-01
...when he was uninsured (etc) was a sufficient causal link. Williams was followed by the Scottish High Court in Rai v HM Advocate.1212[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 designa......