Death By Dangerous Driving Cases
Explanation
📌 Definition
“Death by dangerous driving” is a criminal offence where a person causes the death of another by driving a vehicle in a manner that is considered dangerous according to legal standards.
🔍 Key Legal Elements:
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove:
The accused was driving a mechanically propelled vehicle.
The driving was dangerous, meaning:
It fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and
It would be obvious to a competent driver that the manner of driving would be dangerous.
The driving caused the death of another person.
There is no lawful excuse or acceptable mitigating circumstance.
🛣️ Dangerous Driving May Include:
Excessive speed
Ignoring traffic signals
Overtaking dangerously
Use of mobile phone while driving
Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Racing on public roads
⚖️ Statutory Basis (UK Example):
Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991)
Maximum sentence in the UK is life imprisonment (increased from 14 years by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).
🧑⚖️ Important Case Law Examples – Death by Dangerous Driving
1. R v. Bannister (2009)
Court: Court of Appeal (UK)
Facts:
Bannister was a police driver trained in advanced driving techniques.
He was driving at high speed and crashed, causing the death of a passenger.
He argued that his training meant his standard of driving should be judged differently.
Decision:
The court held that the standard of driving must be assessed objectively, not based on the driver’s personal skill or training.
Conviction for death by dangerous driving upheld.
Significance:
Confirms that even professionally trained drivers are held to the same objective standard.
Dangerous driving is not judged by the driver’s personal ability, but by public expectations.
2. R v. Misra and Srivastava (2004)
Note: While this case is primarily about gross negligence manslaughter, it has implications for death by dangerous driving.
Facts:
Doctors failed to act on post-surgery infections, resulting in death.
Clarified the principle of causation and risk of death.
Relevance:
In dangerous driving cases, the prosecution must prove that death was a foreseeable consequence of the driving.
The ruling helps define when conduct rises to the level of criminal negligence.
Significance:
Helps frame arguments around causation and foreseeability, essential in driving cases where death results indirectly (e.g., not immediate fatal impact).
3. R v. Woodward (1995)
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts:
A young driver raced another vehicle, lost control, and killed a pedestrian.
He claimed it was just poor judgment and not dangerous driving.
Decision:
Court held that racing on public roads and disregarding safety constituted dangerous driving.
His behaviour created a substantial risk of harm, leading to conviction.
Significance:
Established that reckless behaviour like racing clearly meets the threshold for dangerous driving.
Reinforced the principle that intention to harm is not required, only the dangerousness of conduct.
4. R v. Hughes (2013)
Court: UK Supreme Court
Facts:
Hughes was driving safely but did not have a valid driving licence or insurance.
A motorist under the influence crashed into Hughes’s vehicle and died.
Hughes was charged under causing death while uninsured or unlicensed.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that mere presence on the road without a licence/insurance was not enough to cause death.
The prosecution needed to prove fault in driving.
Significance:
Clarified the causation principle: a defendant must have contributed through their driving, not merely by being present.
Highlights that for a conviction in dangerous driving, the driving must be dangerous, not just unlawful.
5. R v. Marison (2002)
Facts:
The defendant was using a mobile phone while driving, veered into oncoming traffic and caused a fatal collision.
Decision:
Found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
The use of a mobile phone while driving was considered a serious distraction, making the driving dangerous.
Significance:
Established that using a handheld device while driving can amount to dangerous driving.
Court stressed the driver's duty of attention at all times.
6. R v. Cooksley (2003)
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts:
Cooksley drove at high speeds and crashed, killing a passenger.
There were aggravating factors, including prior driving offences.
Decision:
The court upheld a long custodial sentence, setting guidelines for sentencing.
Significance:
Provided sentencing guidelines for death by dangerous driving.
Aggravating factors include:
Excessive speed
Driving under influence
Prior convictions
Attempting to escape police
Mitigating factors include:
Genuine remorse
Lack of intent
Good driving record
7. R v. Gorman (2002)
Facts:
Gorman, while driving under the influence of alcohol, drove onto the pavement and hit two pedestrians, killing one.
Decision:
Found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
His intoxication was a central factor in establishing dangerousness.
Significance:
Confirms that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is inherently dangerous.
Strengthened the legal presumption that impaired drivers who kill may be charged under this offence.
⚖️ Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Key Legal Issue | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Bannister (2009) | Advanced driving skill and dangerousness | Objective standard of driving regardless of training |
| R v. Misra (2004) | Causation and foreseeability | Clarified need for risk of death; supports causation in driving cases |
| R v. Woodward (1995) | Racing and recklessness | Reckless behaviour like racing qualifies as dangerous driving |
| R v. Hughes (2013) | Driving without a licence vs. actual fault | Mere illegality is insufficient; fault in driving required |
| R v. Marison (2002) | Mobile phone use while driving | Distraction while driving may amount to dangerous driving |
| R v. Cooksley (2003) | Sentencing guidelines | Set precedent for aggravating and mitigating factors |
| R v. Gorman (2002) | Drunk driving and fatality | DUI inherently considered dangerous |
🧠 Conclusion
Death by dangerous driving is treated as a serious criminal offence, especially when it results in the irreversible consequence of someone’s death. Courts focus on the standard of driving, the foreseeability of harm, and the driver's state of mind or conduct at the time.
Key principles that emerge from case law include:
Objective standard of assessment
Reckless or impaired behaviour meets the threshold for dangerousness
Causation must be established—the dangerous driving must contribute to the death
Sentencing depends on aggravating/mitigating factors
The law continues to evolve, particularly as new distractions (e.g., mobile devices) and technologies influence driver behavior.
RELATED Blog
0 comments