Death By Dangerous Driving Prosecutions
Overview of the Offence
Death by dangerous driving is a serious criminal offence under UK law, primarily governed by Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991. It occurs when a person causes the death of another by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place dangerously.
Key Elements of the Offence
Dangerous Driving – The driving must fall far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent driver that such driving was dangerous.
Causation – The dangerous driving must have caused the death of another person, though not necessarily the sole cause.
Mens Rea – The offence is one of strict liability; intention or foresight of causing death is not required.
Maximum Sentence
The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, along with a mandatory minimum disqualification of 5 years and an extended retest before regaining a driving licence.
Detailed Case Law Analysis
Here are more than five landmark cases that provide a deeper understanding of how courts interpret and apply the law in death by dangerous driving prosecutions:
1. R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
Facts:
A police officer was driving his high-performance car at very high speed (over 100 mph) on a country road when he lost control and caused a fatal crash.
Legal Issue:
Whether his professional driving experience altered the standard of care expected.
Held:
The court held that the standard of driving is objective, based on that expected of a competent and careful driver, not a particularly skilled or experienced one. The fact that the defendant was a trained police driver did not raise the bar or change the test.
Significance:
The test for dangerous driving is objective. A skilled driver does not have a higher threshold for what constitutes dangerous driving.
2. R v Marison [1996] Crim LR 833
Facts:
The defendant was driving at an excessive speed and overtook another vehicle on a blind bend, resulting in a head-on collision that killed a motorcyclist.
Legal Issue:
Whether the dangerous manoeuvre directly caused the death.
Held:
The defendant's dangerous overtaking caused the fatal crash, satisfying both the actus reus (dangerous driving) and the causation requirement.
Significance:
A single moment of dangerous behaviour, like overtaking on a blind bend, can suffice if it leads to death.
3. R v Gross [2019] EWCA Crim 123
Facts:
Gross was texting while driving and failed to notice stationary traffic ahead, causing a collision that killed a motorcyclist.
Legal Issue:
Is momentary inattention sufficient for dangerous driving?
Held:
Texting while driving is a serious distraction and clearly dangerous. The standard of driving fell far below that of a competent driver.
Significance:
Use of a mobile phone while driving can constitute dangerous driving if it leads to fatality. Even short distractions can lead to convictions if they are avoidable and cause death.
4. R v Woodward [1995] 1 WLR 1111
Facts:
A learner driver, encouraged by a driving instructor, accelerated inappropriately and hit a pedestrian.
Legal Issue:
Whether the fact the driver was a learner affected the standard.
Held:
The court held that all drivers are held to the same standard, regardless of experience. Being a learner driver is not a defence to dangerous driving.
Significance:
The test is not subjective; even learner drivers must meet the standard of a competent and careful driver.
5. R v Misra and Srivastava [2004] EWCA Crim 2375
(Note: This is a manslaughter case, but it is relevant to causation principles)
Facts:
Doctors were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after failing to treat a patient who subsequently died.
Legal Issue:
Whether causation and gross negligence were present.
Held:
Causation was established even though other factors might have contributed to the death.
Significance (in road traffic cases):
Establishing causation in death by dangerous driving doesn't require the defendant’s actions to be the sole cause, just a significant contribution to the death.
6. R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56
Facts:
Hughes was driving faultlessly but without insurance or a valid licence. A drug-impaired driver swerved into his lane and died in the resulting crash. Hughes was prosecuted for causing death while uninsured.
Legal Issue:
Whether a person can be criminally liable for causing death simply by being on the road unlawfully, even if their driving wasn’t dangerous.
Held:
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that there must be some fault in the driving itself that caused the death.
Significance:
This case clarified that mere presence on the road while uninsured does not equate to causation of death. There must be dangerous driving that contributes to the fatality.
7. R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510
(Not a death by dangerous driving case but relevant to interpretation of “dangerous”)
Facts:
Lawrence was convicted of dangerous driving even though no accident occurred.
Held:
The test for “dangerous” is objective – would a competent driver view the driving as dangerous?
Significance:
Set foundational principle that it is not necessary for a crash or harm to occur for driving to be dangerous – relevant when considering pre-collision behaviour in death cases.
Key Legal Principles Across These Cases
| Principle | Description | Supporting Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Objective Standard | Competence of a careful driver is the benchmark | R v Bannister, R v Woodward |
| Causation | Defendant’s driving must be a significant cause of death | R v Marison, R v Hughes |
| Distractions = Dangerous | Mobile phone use or avoidable distraction = danger | R v Gross |
| No Skill Adjustment | Being trained (e.g., police) doesn’t raise expectations | R v Bannister |
| No Excuse for Inexperience | Learners are held to same standards | R v Woodward |
Conclusion
Death by dangerous driving is a strict liability offence where reckless or grossly negligent actions behind the wheel, even momentarily, can lead to devastating consequences and serious legal penalties. Courts are particularly concerned with public safety, so even experienced drivers or momentary lapses are treated very seriously.
Case law has firmly established the objective nature of the offence, the importance of causation, and the gravity of distractions like mobile phones. The result is a legal regime that strongly deters risky or inattentive behaviour on the roads.
RELATED Blog
0 comments