Mr Smith lost control of his new sports car whilst driving down the main street of the local village on a late rainy Saturday afternoon. He veered into Mrs White’s car which was travelling in the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, Mrs White’s car was a ‘write-off’ and both Mrs White, (who was pregnant at the time), and her husband, were pronounced ‘dead at the scene’.

QUESTION

Mr Smith lost control of his new sports car whilst driving down the main street of the local village on a late rainy Saturday afternoon. He veered into Mrs White’s car which was travelling in the opposite direction. As a result of the collision, Mrs White’s car was a ‘write-off’ and both Mrs White, (who was pregnant at the time), and her husband, were pronounced ‘dead at the scene’.

After the accident, the police discovered 8g of cocaine hidden in Mr Smith’s car. Mr Smith has admitted to the possession of a class A drug but denies that he was driving under its influence or that he has caused death by dangerous driving. Mr Smith has no previous convictions and was very distressed by the event. When questioned, he told the police that the very poor visibility and the flooded street made him lose control of his car. Both the forensic and police investigations suggest that the bad weather may have caused a loss of control of the car if it was travelling at a speed of 60mph or above.

You are working for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) office and have been asked to draft written advice in response to both (a) and (b) below.

By applying the Crown prosecution full code test, consider whether Mr Smith should be charged with:

(i) causing death by careless driving (s2B and s3ZA(2) Road Traffic Act 1988). or

(ii) causing death by dangerous driving (s1 and s2A Road Traffic Act 1988)

In your answer, consider both the evidential and public interest stage tests in each case.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2B/2008-08-18
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA/2008-08-18
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/1/2008-08-18
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A/2008-08-18

ANSWER

Assessing Charges in a Fatal Car Accident: A Case Analysis under the Crown Prosecution Full Code Test

Introduction

In the aftermath of a tragic car accident involving Mr Smith, who lost control of his sports car, causing a collision resulting in the death of Mrs White and her husband, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must determine the appropriate charges. This essay applies the Crown Prosecution Full Code Test to evaluate whether Mr Smith should be charged with causing death by careless driving or causing death by dangerous driving, considering both the evidential and public interest stages.

I. Charge Consideration: Causing Death by Careless Driving

To assess the charge of causing death by careless driving (under s2B and s3ZA(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988), the CPS must satisfy the Full Code Test, examining both evidential sufficiency and public interest.

a) Evidential Stage

The evidential stage requires the CPS to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. In this case, the presence of 8g of cocaine in Mr Smith’s car is unrelated to the primary charge but can be used to assess potential impairment. To establish careless driving, the prosecution must demonstrate that Mr Smith’s driving fell below the standard expected of a competent driver and that it caused the deaths of Mrs White and her husband.

The police investigation reveals that the poor visibility and flooded street were contributing factors to the loss of control. However, the forensic analysis suggests that Mr Smith’s car may have been traveling at a speed of 60mph or above, further raising concerns about excessive speed. Establishing a causal link between Mr Smith’s driving and the deaths is crucial for the charge of careless driving.

b) Public Interest Stage

The public interest stage requires the CPS to consider the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s culpability, and any mitigating factors. Mr Smith has no prior convictions, expressed distress, and admitted to the possession of cocaine. However, the loss of two lives and the potential involvement of excessive speed necessitate a thorough examination of the public interest.

II. Charge Consideration: Causing Death by Dangerous Driving

To assess the charge of causing death by dangerous driving (under s1 and s2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988), the CPS must again apply the Full Code Test, considering the evidential sufficiency and public interest.

a) Evidential Stage

To prove dangerous driving, the prosecution must demonstrate that Mr Smith’s driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and it posed a substantial risk of causing serious harm. The presence of adverse weather conditions and the potential involvement of excessive speed are key factors to consider.

The forensic analysis indicating a possible speed of 60mph or above raises concerns about Mr Smith’s compliance with the duty of care and the substantial risk posed to others on the road. The adverse weather conditions may contribute to the assessment of whether Mr Smith’s driving fell far below the expected standard.

b) Public Interest Stage

The public interest stage requires a careful evaluation of the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s culpability, and any mitigating factors. Considering the loss of two lives, the potential involvement of excessive speed, and the possible impact of adverse weather conditions, the public interest in prosecuting for causing death by dangerous driving is substantial.

Conclusion

In light of the Crown Prosecution Full Code Test, the charge of causing death by dangerous driving appears to be more appropriate in this case, given the potential involvement of excessive speed and the substantial risk posed by Mr Smith’s driving. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence, including expert opinions, witness statements, and further investigations, is essential to establish a realistic prospect of conviction and to uphold the public interest. The decision regarding the specific charge to be brought against Mr Smith should be based on a thorough assessment of the evidential sufficiency and the seriousness of the offense, ensuring a fair and just outcome in light of the tragic circumstances surrounding the accident.