Dangerous Driving Prosecutions
Dangerous Driving: Legal Framework Overview
Definition: Dangerous driving is driving a vehicle on a road or public place in a manner that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Relevant Law: Under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, dangerous driving is a criminal offence.
Penalty: Can include imprisonment, disqualification, fines, and endorsements on the driving licence.
Key Cases on Dangerous Driving Prosecutions
1. R v. Lawrence (1982)
Facts:
Defendant was driving a car at excessive speed and caused death by dangerous driving.
Appeal concerned the interpretation of "dangerous driving."
Ruling:
The court clarified that "dangerous" depends on whether the driving was dangerous to a competent and careful driver.
Held the test was objective — based on reasonable person standards, not the defendant’s personal skill.
Significance:
Established the objective standard for dangerous driving.
2. R v. Caunt (1990)
Facts:
Defendant drove at high speed in a built-up area and collided with a pedestrian.
Charged with dangerous driving causing death.
Ruling:
Court confirmed that driving at excessive speed in a pedestrian-heavy area is inherently dangerous.
Affirmed application of Section 2 of Road Traffic Act.
Significance:
Reinforced that context (location, conditions) matters in judging dangerousness.
3. R v. Bateman (1925)
Facts:
Early case on dangerous driving causing death.
Defendant argued that accident was unavoidable.
Ruling:
Court held that the driving must be “a marked departure from the standard expected.”
Mere mistakes or errors don’t suffice.
Significance:
Introduced concept of marked departure from reasonable standard.
4. R v. Moriarty (2014)
Facts:
Defendant was driving recklessly after drinking alcohol and causing injury.
Question if reckless driving amounted to dangerous driving.
Ruling:
Court held reckless driving may or may not be dangerous driving.
The facts must be examined carefully, and recklessness alone isn’t always dangerous.
Significance:
Clarified difference between reckless and dangerous driving.
5. R v. Harris (2007)
Facts:
Defendant was driving aggressively but argued the driving wasn’t dangerous.
Ruling:
The court emphasized that dangerous driving depends on the risk to other road users, not just the driver.
Significance:
Focused on potential harm to others as the core test.
6. R v. Lloyd (2012)
Facts:
Defendant was speeding but claimed lack of awareness due to fatigue.
Ruling:
Court rejected subjective excuses if the driving objectively endangered others.
Significance:
Reinforced objective assessment, regardless of defendant’s state of mind.
7. R v. Hughes (2013)
Facts:
Defendant not licensed to drive collided with another driver.
Ruling:
Court held that dangerous driving is independent of licensing status.
Unlicensed driving can still amount to dangerous driving.
Significance:
Separates dangerous driving offence from licensing offences.
Summary Table:
| Case | Key Issue | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Lawrence (1982) | Objective standard | Dangerous driving judged objectively |
| Caunt (1990) | Contextual risk | Location/context is critical |
| Bateman (1925) | Marked departure | Not just mistakes, must be serious fault |
| Moriarty (2014) | Reckless vs dangerous | Recklessness ≠ always dangerous |
| Harris (2007) | Risk to others | Focus on danger to others, not just driver |
| Lloyd (2012) | Fatigue excuse | Objective standard over subjective claims |
| Hughes (2013) | Licensing status | Driving dangerously can be separate from license status |
RELATED Blog
0 comments