header-logo header-logo

ROAD TRAFFIC

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll