The defendant had stopped on the hard shoulder of the motorway at night, but displayed no lights. A truck, the driver having fallen asleep at the wheel, hit the car and a passenger died. The prosecutor now appealed accession to a submission of no case to answer on the charge of causing death by dangerous driving, saying that the truck driver’s act was a new intervening act which broke the chain of causation.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. To decide if the defendant’s dangerous driving had caused death or serious injury, the jury need not be sure that the precise later act was reasonably foreseeable. In is case, it was reasonably foreseeable that another vehicle might leave the carriageway and collide with the defendant’s parked car.
Judges:
Simon LJ, Fraser, Hilliard JJ
Citations:
[2020] EWCA Crim 407, [2020] RTR 18, [2020] 1 WLR 2320, [2020] WLR(D) 186, [2020] 2 Cr App R 3
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Girdler v Regina CACD 15-Dec-2009
What directions should be given to the jury when a defendant charged with causing death by dangerous driving in one count submits that he did not cause the death of a person, but that a driver in another vehicle, whose death the defendant is also . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.649227