The appellant challenged his conviction for aiding an abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving as a passenger. The driver had been drunk.
Held: The mere intoxication of the driver was not of itself and alone sufficient to establish dangerous driving. Woodward decided only that evidence of drinking was admissible, not that it was evidence capable of determining the standard of driving. In his summing up, the judge twice referred to whether it had been wise of the defendant to allow the driver to drive given his state. This was not the question posed by s2A: ‘The question was whether the appellant recognised, by virtue of what he saw to be Westbrook’s drunken condition, that Westbrook was likely to drive dangerously. It is one thing to set out to prove that it was dangerous to permit Westbrook to drive because he had been drinking or was drunk. It is a quite different question whether, by virtue of the amount it was apparent to the appellant that Westbrook had drunk, the appellant realised Westbrook was likely to drive dangerously. ‘ The conviction was unsafe.
Moses LJ, Jack J, Royce J
[2006] EWCA Crim 415, Times 15-Mar-2006
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 2A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v McBride 1961
Evidence that a driver had been drinking was admissible when the driver faced a charge of dangerous driving. . .
Cited – Regina v Woodward (Terence) CACD 7-Dec-1994
On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it . .
Cited – Johnson v Youden KBD 1950
For a charge of aiding and abetting, the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the essential elements of his acts which constituted the complete crime. However, that may be inferred if a defendant shuts his eyes to the obvious.
Lord . .
Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .
Cited by:
Cited – Martin v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2010
The defendant had been a passenger on a car driven by a learner driver. The car crashed killing the driver and seriously injuring another. He appealed against his conviction for aiding and abetting dangerous driving.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Road Traffic
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.239058
