Lee’s most likely charge would be of aiding and abetting his co-accused, Mark, of causing the death of Brian by dangerous driving. However Mark, the driver, would have to be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving first before Lee is charged. This is because there can be no aiding and abetting of a crime that has not been committed.
The facts of the case are that Lee, his wife and friends were in a pub celebrating Lee’s recent promotion. The evidence shows that Lee was abstemious throughout the night however the others had been drinking a ‘great deal’ and for ‘several hours’. After celebrating in the pub, Lee and his wife offered Mark and Brian a lift home. Lee was driving at first but at some point during the journey Lee permitted
…show more content…
Mark to drive. Mark then drove erratically and at excessive speed; the vehicle left the road and, unfortunately, Brian was thrown from the vehicle and died. The prosecution will try to prove that Mark was driving ‘dangerously’ as to convict him of death through dangerous driving.
The statutory definition of “dangerous driving”, is set out in section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as:—
[(1) For the purposes of sections 1[, 1A] and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
(2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1[, 1A] and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the
…show more content…
accused. (4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.] In order to prove that Lee was guilty of aiding and abetting Mark to drive dangerously, the prosecution will have to prove that at the time he permitted him to drive he foresaw that Mark was likely to drive in a dangerous manner (mens rea). It could be easy to say that Lee could have foreseen Mark to drive dangerously by saying Mark was clearly drunk. In the facts of the case it shows that Lee was with Mark celebrating his promotion, so he must of seen Mark had been drinking a ‘great deal’ and for ‘several hours’ as they were together. However being drunk does not determine whether the way in which the defendant had driven was dangerous. In the literal meaning of section (1) (a) (b) it states that for a person to be driving dangerously their driving has to fall far below that of a competent and careful driver and it has to be obvious to the ‘reasonable man’ that driving in that way would be dangerous. This section only refers only to the manner of driving and does not seem to have anything to do with the condition the driver was in at the time they were driving. This narrow definition of the law could help Lee’s case, as even though he might have known that Mark was drunk he did not know in the manner he would drive. Many people drive whilst under the influence of alcohol but drive in a safely. However, this literal meaning of the law has not been followed by the courts, as was shown in R v McBride [1962] 2 QB 167 at 172. This case sets the precedent on whether evidence that the Defendant had been drinking before he drove, was admissible in court. It was held:— “that the fact that a driver was adversely affected by drink was a circumstance relevant to the issue whether he was driving dangerously, and evidence to that effect was of probative value and admissible; but that the mere fact that a driver had had drink was not of itself relevant, and such evidence was not admissible unless it tended to show that the amount of drink taken was such as would adversely affect a driver, or that the driver was in fact adversely affected; that the court had an overriding discretion to exclude such evidence if in its opinion the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value, and if such evidence was to be introduced it should at least appear to be of substantial weight; and that, in the circumstances of the case, the evidence as to the appellant's condition in regard to drink was clearly of substantial weight and that, therefore, the judge had rightly exercised his discretion in admitting it.” Unfortunately for Lee, the condition of Mark is relevant and this evidence is admissible in court if his driving was adversely affected by it. This judgement makes sense has a driver's ability to drive is greatly impaired if they are drunk. However it is not sufficient to merely to rely upon the condition of the driver in order to prove the offence of death by dangerous driving. To establish secondary liability the prosecution will have to show Lee’s state of mind and whether he foresaw the likelihood that Mark would drive in a dangerous manner. To do this the prosecution will focus on when Lee handed over control of the car to Mark. The evidence suggests that Mark had a ‘great deal’ to drink. Lee knows this, but it depends on whether Mark appeared to be incapable of driving safely. Mark could have been swaying or his speech might have been slurred. The more drunk Mark appeared to be, the easier it will be for the prosecution to prove that Lee foresaw that he was likely to drive dangerously. However it must be proved that Lee did foresee that Mark was likely to commit an offence, it is not enough to prove that he ought to foresee it (see Blakely, Sutton v DPP [1991] RTR 405, [1991] Crim LR 763). Lee, obviously, did not intend for Brian to die but he is still criminally liable for Mark’s act if he foresees that it was likely to occur. We have discussed the mens rea of the crime but to be found guilty of a crime in England and Wales the court also has to the actus rea (the guilty action). The actus rea of this case would be the actions of Lee letting Mark drive. Lee must have permitted Mark to drive by stopping the car and allowing Mark to sit in the driver’s seat. This should be sufficient actus reus to prove secondary liability. There is also the actus reus of omission. During the journey, Lee must have known Mark was driving dangerously as he was driving ‘erratically and at speed’. As it was Lee’s car he should have intervened and attempted to make Mark stop. His failure to do so demonstrated his participation in the dangerous driving. However the prosecution will have to prove that there was an opportunity for Lee to intervene. If there was an opportunity and Lee took it he might not be at fault because that action of inference would disassociate himself with the dangerous driving. On the other hand if there was an opportunity and Lee did not take it this could show his encouragement or assistance of Mark’s dangerous driving. There is also the possibly that there was no opportunity in which case Lee might not be at fault but this would have to be proven. The case of Du Cros v Lambourne [1907] 1 KB 40, 5 LGR 120, 70 JP 525 establishes the precedent that if the driver drives dangerously in the owner's presence, consent, and/or approval the defendant might be convicted of aiding and abetting dangerous driving. In this case:— “The appellant appealed to quarter sessions against a conviction for unlawfully driving his motor car at a speed dangerous to the public.
At the hearing of the appeal there was a conflict of evidence as to whether the car was being driven by the appellant or by a lady seated by his side in the car. The quarter sessions, without deciding whether the appellant was himself driving the car, dismissed the appeal, finding as facts that if the lady was driving she was doing so with the consent and approval of the appellant, who must have known that the speed was dangerous, and who, being in control of the car, could, and ought to, have prevented
it:— Held, affirming the decision of quarter sessions, that there was evidence on which the appellant could be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of the offence.”
As pointed out by Meagher JA in Marien v Gardiner it is not possible that the driver could foresee and react to any event that could take place within the area surrounding the vehicle. Therefore, the driver could not have breached his duty of care in any circumstance that an object by chance is to collide with a vehicle on the road.
Aggressive driving can also result from drunk or drug driving and distracted driving. It is hence densely woven into multiple road dangers.
He talks about how when we were in Italy that the only law was that “no driver may ever be behind any other driver” he says this jokingly not thinking that anyone would take him seriously. But they may drive like that because of how their culture is or how that is just how they drive in their country but, he is trying to show us as the reader that he has seen a lot of bad driving in his time. Because of him humorous ways in the passage it grabs our attention and allures us to just keep reading and see what he must say about Miami drivers and to see just how they are. Although, he makes a good argument he uses his personal experiences and puts a little humorous twist on them; So, he doesn’t have any hard facts on drivers around the world and especially the ones in Miami. Like the one he got to expierence first hand by the Miami driver passing and him getting a good look at what the heck the driver was doing. Come to find out the driver “was watching it on a video screen that had been installed where the visor
Statistics show 16- to 17-year-old driver death rates increase with each additional passenger, which is due to distracted driving. Taking your eyes off the road for 2 (two) seconds, at 60 mph, means you have driven blindly for half the length of a football field. The risk of fatality is 3.6 times higher, when they are driving with passengers than when alone. For many years, the correlation between driving behavior and age has interested highway safety researchers and administrators. It is general knowledge that the greatest risk of motor vehicle crash...
The cdc.gov says, "Everyday more that 9 people are killed in the united states and more than 1,153 people are injured in car crashes that are reported involving a distracted driver."Distracted driving is driving while doing another activity that takes drivers ' attention away from driving. An everyday activity that is dangerous is being distracted while driving. Three situations that can cause driving to be dangerous are texting while driving, being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs while operating a vehicle,being distracted by passengers inside the car.
"Teen Driving." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News
• People who take risks when driving or riding in a motor vehicle, such as speeding.
Richard Petty once said “You’ll got home safe, so drive safe, and stay safe.” Being a racing legend, he is an advocate for safe driving to minimise the cases of road crushes that have been on the rise. He double up as the chairman of the Veterans’ Safe Driving Initiative, the initiative is aimed at guiding the veterans returning from deployment on safe driving tips. It is necessarily important since the infrastructure has changed over time. Another initiative is being run in Minnesota where the teens are guided on the important safe driving tips. Study shows that more crushes are likely to occur in teen driving than veteran driving. It is also evident that young drivers are more likely to cause a crush within six months of passing the driving test and young male are worse than the females in the field.
Last thing, you have to take into account that you aren’t only a danger to yourself, you also pose a threat to the passengers in your vehicle, passing cyclists, other vehicles on the road, and the buildings and structures in your community. With that being said, here are 12 facts you should know about driving
I started driving not too long ago, and in the little experience I have gained I can say that there are three types of drivers in this world the irresponsible driver, the good driver, and the over-cautious driver. There is the irresponsible driver, this type of driver can seem unpredictable on the road because they drive so close your car and speed like a maniac. They are the most dangerous driver of them all not only to themselves but to other drivers on the road. Then the good driver, this type of drivers pay attention to their surroundings, such as weather, and other traffic. Finally, there is the over-cautious driver, who is just as easy to spot as the irresponsible driver. They are normally going under the speed limit or close to it, this type of driver slow traffic, and in highly jammed areas, they can be a danger on the road from disturb and not flowing well with the traffic.
car with his friends, and they were stopped at a stop light. The drunk driver behind them hit
Traffic collisions is one of the most unpredictable, fatal, and devastating occurrences that can take place in a individuals life. It is still undetermined what the major causes may be for traffic accidents. Some critics acclaim, that it is the lack of safety awareness by drivers. Other people believe that new safety driving education courses should be implemented and required for new drivers. They suggest that it is a vital element that can help reduce the number of traffic accidents greatly. Something also considered is the lack of experience when dealing with poor conditions of weather and roads for new drivers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how evidence/ information play a role in traffic collisions. Next I will explain
The main form of reckless driving that a large amount of people are aware of is drinking and driving. When an individual is under the influence while driving, it can become detrimental in regards to other lives, not just to the individual behind the wheel because it impairs the driver 's ability to make quick and smart decisions. Within the last year there was a 15 year old boy who had lost his life due to driving under the influence. Somehow the boy had managed to veer off the road and wrap his car around a pole and into a Whataburger, not only taking his own life but also risking the lives of anyone who was inside the restaurant. The fact that he was drinking impaired his ability to drive, thus resulting in not having control of his vehicle. Another major issue of reckless driving is speeding. Many times drivers will reach dangerous speeds on the road as the result of racing. Once reaching the high speeds, the individual is risking the amount of control they have over the car. When lacking control of the vehicle the said person is
I. The Problem: The major cause of aggressive driving is the discourteous or inattentive driver.
It is important to follow all traffic laws to keep everyone safe on road. The amount of traffic accidents and losses drops significantly when people are obeying the rules on the road. Sometimes we forget what a big responsibility it is to drive carefully. Traffic laws are designed to protect you and other drivers on the streets. If we don’t follow them we are not only putting ourselves in risk but also other innocent people. By knowing the rules of the road, practicing good driving skills, you help play a vital role in preventing a crash. You will also be making the safety policies more effective. Many components play a major role in road safety including speed limits that are posted and making sure safety equipment is properly installed and used.