References: [2009] EWCA Crim 1571, Times 24-Aug-2009
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Collins and Mr Justice Owen
Ratio: The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. As a police officer he had driven at over 110 mph on a motorway in the wet, lost control and crashed. He said that the fact that he had undertaken the police advanced drivers’ course should be taken into account in deciding whether he had been driving dangerously.
Held: ‘taking into account the driving skills of a particular driver is inconsistent with the objective test of the competent and careful driver set out in the statute. If the special skill of the driver is taken into account in assessing whether the driving is dangerous, then it must follow inevitably that the standard being applied is that of the driver with special skills and not that of the competent and careful driver, because the standard of the competent and careful driver is being modified.’ The summing up had in fact been more favourable to the defendant than it should have been. However, it was irrelevant whether he had been on police business at the time, and the jury may have been confused by the judge’s direction. The conviction was quashed.
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1991 2A
This case cites:
- Cited – Milton v Crown Prosecution Service Admn (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 532 (Admin))
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, saying that his special skills as a trained police driver should have been allowed for. He had driven on a motorway at average speeds of 148mph.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The . . - Cited – Regina v Woodward (Terence) CACD (Times 07-Dec-94, [1995] 2 Cr App R 388, [1995] 3 All ER 79, [1995] RTR 130)
On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it . . - Cited – Regina v Marison CACD (Gazette 02-Aug-96, Times 16-Jul-96, [1997] RTR 457)
A diabetic who drove anticipating a diabetic attack was driving recklessly and his act constituted dangerous driving. . . - Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2000 CACD ([2001] EWCA Crim 780, [2001] 2 Cr App R 2)
Lord Woolf CJ reaffirmed that the test for dangerous driving was an objective one: ‘Section 2A sets out a wholly objective test. The concept of what is obvious to a careful driver places the question of what constitutes dangerous driving within the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 05-Oct-18
Ref: 365620
The post Bannister, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2009 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.