References: [2003] EWHC 247 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: MacKay J
Ratio: The defendant appealed by case stated against a conviction for driving a lorry without due care and attention, leading to the death of another road user. There had been an unexplained swing of the rear of his trailer out into the path of the other vehicle.
Held: It was plainly open to the magistrates to make this finding of fact in the terms in which they made it and it could not be impugned.
This case cites:
- Cited – Wright v Wenlock ([1971] RTR 228, [1972] CLR 49)
The court set out the circumstances in which, in the absense of an explanation, the only proper inference is careless driving.
Lord Parker CJ said ‘the facts of a particular case may be such that, in the absence of some explanation the only . . - Cited – Butty v Davey ([1972] CLR 48)
Where a defendant provided an explanation of an accident which was not fanciful, he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. . . - Cited – Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat PC ([1988] SJ 1244, [1988] RTR 298, Bailii, [1988] UKPC 7, Bailii)
There had been a crossover collision on a dual carriageway.
Held: The court considered the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Held: Where a defendant adduces evidence, that evidence must be evaluated to see if it is still reasonable to draw . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16 November 2018
Ref: 184954
The post Bingham, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 7 Feb 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.
