Reckless and Careless Driving: Is There a Difference?
| Author | Barry Mitchell |
| Date | 01 May 1986 |
| Published date | 01 May 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838605000210 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RECKLESS
AND
CARELESS
DRIVING:
IS
THERE
A
DIFFERENCE?
Barry Mitchell*
Some four years or so have now passed since the decision of the
House of Lords was reported in R. v. Lawrence (1981) 73
Cr.App.R.
1, in which Lord Diplock gave his version of an
appropriate direction to the jury as to the meaning of reckless
driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. His Lordship
stated
that
the jury must be satisfied of two things:
"First, that the defendant was in fact driving the vehicle in such
amanner 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; and
secondly, that in driving in that manner the defendant did so
without having given any thought to the possibility of there
being any such risk or having recognised that there was some
risk involved had nonetheless gone on to take it. "
He then added:
"It
is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the
manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious
and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard
of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by
themselves."
Lord Diplock expressly overruled the decision in R. v. Murphy
(William) (1980) 71
Cr.App.R.
33, where the Court of Appeal
held that:
"a
driver is guilty of driving recklessly if he deliberately
disregards the obligation to drive with due care and attention
or is indifferent whether or not he does so and thereby creates
the risk of an accident which a driver driving with due care and
attention would not
create."
•Department of Legal Studies. Coventry (Lanchester) Polytechnic.
186
To continue reading
Request your trial