Due care and attention - what is burden on crown ?
Discussion
Section 3 Due care and attention is where the driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable , prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case. Summary offence with max fine of &2,500, discretionary (not mandatory) disqualification/and or until driving test has been passed and also 3 to 9 points.
From CPS Driving Offences Charging Standard :
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is an objective one. It applies both where the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when the manner of driving occurs as a result of an error of judgement or simply as a result of incompetence or inexperience.....
...in general, prosecution for Sect 3 will be appropriate when the manner of the driving demonstrates a serious miscalculation or a disregard for road safety, taking into account all the circumstances including road, traffic and/or weather conditions......
.....in deciding if charge is appropriate consideration should be given whether the act of driving concerned was either momentary inattention which may in itself not lead to a prosecution, or something more serious. It is acts caused by more than momentary inattention - especially where the manner of driving adversely affects the safety of other road users, which will normally result in a Sect 3 charge.
Guess this doesn't help very much but an idea how CPS consider when they mark up for the go ahead. They will of course be mindful that it is not a wasted exercise in a case lost and for that reason will have all evidence available in front of then, which, with due respect members of this Forum will not have. Impressions are not evidence.
My impression from what you say, I would have thought the Insurance Solicitor could have come up with some reasonable arguements to place blame on the other driver involved, but again I say he may well have all the evidence that we do not.
If you are not happy with him then consider, and I only say this as you seem in a quandry, asking for an adjournment with a view to getting a second opinion from a Solicitor of your own, well versed in Traffic Law.
As far as the death in concerned then the charge is not causing death by due care but nevertheless it may well be mentioned and if so the points you make ie Coroners Court can be equally stated.
Is she a member of NARPO - if so have word with your Branch Sec to see what help if any they give.
Sorry I cannot come up with a magic formula to resolve your problem. It would seem, at the end of the day, it is going to be the decision of the Magistrates.
DVD
From CPS Driving Offences Charging Standard :
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is an objective one. It applies both where the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when the manner of driving occurs as a result of an error of judgement or simply as a result of incompetence or inexperience.....
...in general, prosecution for Sect 3 will be appropriate when the manner of the driving demonstrates a serious miscalculation or a disregard for road safety, taking into account all the circumstances including road, traffic and/or weather conditions......
.....in deciding if charge is appropriate consideration should be given whether the act of driving concerned was either momentary inattention which may in itself not lead to a prosecution, or something more serious. It is acts caused by more than momentary inattention - especially where the manner of driving adversely affects the safety of other road users, which will normally result in a Sect 3 charge.
Guess this doesn't help very much but an idea how CPS consider when they mark up for the go ahead. They will of course be mindful that it is not a wasted exercise in a case lost and for that reason will have all evidence available in front of then, which, with due respect members of this Forum will not have. Impressions are not evidence.
My impression from what you say, I would have thought the Insurance Solicitor could have come up with some reasonable arguements to place blame on the other driver involved, but again I say he may well have all the evidence that we do not.
If you are not happy with him then consider, and I only say this as you seem in a quandry, asking for an adjournment with a view to getting a second opinion from a Solicitor of your own, well versed in Traffic Law.
As far as the death in concerned then the charge is not causing death by due care but nevertheless it may well be mentioned and if so the points you make ie Coroners Court can be equally stated.
Is she a member of NARPO - if so have word with your Branch Sec to see what help if any they give.
Sorry I cannot come up with a magic formula to resolve your problem. It would seem, at the end of the day, it is going to be the decision of the Magistrates.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
As far as the death in concerned then the charge is not causing death by due care but nevertheless it may well be mentioned and if so the points you make ie Coroners Court can be equally stated.
Causing death by careless driving is ONLY applicable to those cases where alcohol is an ingredient in the cause of the act.
You cannot be charged with this offence unless you have been drinking alcohol.
DVD said:
Is she a member of NARPO - if so have word with your Branch Sec to see what help if any they give.
Good advice too
DVD said:
Sorry I cannot come up with a magic formula to resolve your problem. It would seem, at the end of the day, it is going to be the decision of the Magistrates.
DVD
I am in total agreement with that.
I do not think she is likely to be disqualified as a result. The Magistrates are not allowed to base punishment on the consequences of the accident. Merely the degree of carelessness they decide was a contributory factor.
If she had inadvertently hit a traffic bollard and damaged that, then she would not be disqualified. Was the degree of carelessness any diferent to that sort of scenario?
gone said:
As far as the death in concerned then the charge is not causing death by due care but nevertheless it may well be mentioned and if so the points you make ie Coroners Court can be equally stated.
Causing death by careless driving is ONLY applicable to those cases where alcohol is an ingredient in the cause of the act.
Why?
Seems strange to a layman
Gazboy said:
Pies said:
gone said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
As far as the death in concerned then the charge is not causing death by due care but nevertheless it may well be mentioned and if so the points you make ie Coroners Court can be equally stated.
Causing death by careless driving is ONLY applicable to those cases where alcohol is an ingredient in the cause of the act.
Why?
Seems strange to a layman
It is quite complicated but Causing Death by Careless driving was to plug a loophole in DD cases where the driver involved had consumed alcohol to the point that they were over the precribed limit or had left the scene and could not be traced because they had been drinking. Drink Driving does not fit into the same definition as Dangerous driving (strange but it does not) The authorities needed to have an offence to plug the problem of people that kill when affected by alcohol so this was brought onto the statute books to do that.
Police can demand a specimen of breath up to 18 hours after the event when the suspects are caught and refusal top do so is part of the offence of causing death by careless.
If you are pissed and you kill someone whilst at the wheel of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place, you will be charged with this offence and no other.
Careless and dangerous driving have their own specific definitions. If you kill someone by just being careless, then the degree of the carelessness is punishable only, not the consequences of it. Really serious careless driving merges into the realms of dangerous in any case. The courts have to view this subjectively.
Causing death by dangerous driving is another matter though. The fact the driving led to the death is relevant in the punishment and in the facts before the court.
Complex but that is about it in a nutshell!
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 17th June 00:23
anonymous said:
[redacted]
IANAL, but I would have thought that if the police evidence is that the signs were "misleading", then surely a (partial) defence to "being on the wrong side of the road" is that she was misled by the signs. If you can adduce the fact that other docks where your aunt has driven operate one-way systems that in the majority of respects (other than the one-way aspect) parallel the operation at the docks in question, that should add weight to your argument that she was not DWODC&A.
If you can further show that the (old) signage looks in sufficent respects like that at these other docks, then there should be an argument that it was reasonable for your aunt to assume that a similar (one way) system was in operation.
The rapid change of signage following the accident might well suggest that the docks operator was already aware of the issue. Is there any history of accidents where the "misleading" signs were a factor? Any such history might assist your aunt's defence.
Are there any photographs of the old signage, perhaps in the dock's records? Did the police take any? Do the old signs still exist (perhaps in a scrap pile at the docks)?
Streaky
Causing death by Careless driving does NOT have to be accompanied by evidence of drinking. No where in the act does it say that. it was brought in because the burden of proof for a charge of Deatgh by Dangerous driving was more onerous to proove.
Dont know where you got this one from but its way off the mark
Dont know where you got this one from but its way off the mark
Your splitting hairs Go4it.
I condensed causing death by careless driving. I omitted the drink aspect which was pointed out.
The actual offence under Section 3A Road Traffic Act 1988 is
If a person causes the death of another by driving a mech. prop vehicle on a road/public place without due care and attention of without reasonable consideration and at the time he has consumed so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath or urine exceed the prescribed limit - offence.
So there is going to be evidence of drink down the line is there not?
DVD
I condensed causing death by careless driving. I omitted the drink aspect which was pointed out.
The actual offence under Section 3A Road Traffic Act 1988 is
If a person causes the death of another by driving a mech. prop vehicle on a road/public place without due care and attention of without reasonable consideration and at the time he has consumed so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath or urine exceed the prescribed limit - offence.
So there is going to be evidence of drink down the line is there not?
DVD
go4it said:
Causing death by Careless driving does NOT have to be accompanied by evidence of drinking. No where in the act does it say that. it was brought in because the burden of proof for a charge of Deatgh by Dangerous driving was more onerous to proove.
Dont know where you got this one from but its way off the mark
Sorry Go4it, you are wrong. It quite clearly states the bit about alcohol
The Correct title of the offence is Causing Death by Careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs SECTION 3A RTA 1988
This offence is committed when:
1. The driving was without due care
AND
2. The driving has caused the death of another
AND
3.The driver is either unfit through drink or drugs, or the alcohol leve is above the prescribed limit or there has been a failure to provide within 18 hours of the offence occurring.
I know it because of the Last Sgts exam I studied for
If you are involved in an incident of driving without due care and somone dies as result, you can only be charged with 'Driving without due care'!
If you have drunk too much, fail to submit to breath test within 18 hours or are affected by drugs then you can be charged with Section 3A
If it appears that the driving was any worse than due care, Section 1 swings into play.
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 19th June 14:30
Congrats, still heartbreaking for the family involved, though justice has now been done. I too have experienced bolshy CPS women, keep calling for ajournments because they haven't done what they said they would do since the last ajournment. P'haps if the CPS concentrated on making sure the authorities mark roads up in a safe and easy to understand way and not persecuting innocent motorists we would all be a lot better off.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff