header-logo header-logo

20 September 2007
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

ROAD TRAFFIC

R v Myers and another [2007] EWCA Crim 599, [2007] All ER (D) 241 (Feb)

Three cars was travelling in convoy and were being driven dangerously. One car crashed because the driver attempted a handbrake turn; the driver was killed.

There was no contact between the three cars; the cause of the accident was the manner of the deceased’s driving. The other two drivers were charged with dangerous driving. They had not been given any warning notice under RTOA 1988, s 1(1). 

HELD The policy behind the exception in RTOA 1988, s 2(1) is that drivers who have committed a relevant road traffic offence and whose vehicles are involved in or concerned with an accident do not need the warning or notification prescribed by s 1 because the very fact of being involved or concerned with the accident is a sufficient indication of the risk of prosecution.

Section 2(1) requires both the commission of a road traffic offence and an accident occurring at the time of the offence, or immediately after it, owing to the presence on the road of a vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed. Although in many cases the offence would be the (or at least a) cause of the accident, s 2(1) does not so require.

Rather, it requires there to be a sufficient causal link between the offence and the accident that the driver does not need to be warned of the risk of prosecution. In this case, there was a sufficient causal link between the deceased’s accident and the presence on the road of the vehicles driven by the defendants, as the accident occurred owing to the presence on the road of all three dangerously driven vehicles.

Issue: 7289 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll