Bingham, R (on the application of) v DPP

Careless driving may be assessed by considering the whole driving incident, including a sequence of connected actions and omissions. The prosecution need not divide the incident into separate alleged acts of carelessness. A court may rely on reasonable inferences from the available evidence where precise details cannot be established. A driver facing an emergency which was not caused by his own carelessness must not be judged by an excessively critical standard. That principle cannot assist a driver who created the emergency by careless driving. A finding that braking during a skid worsened the situation may support a conviction where the evidence establishes that the braking fell below the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting for the Commissioner of Humberside. He had been convicted of driving a motor lorry without due care and attention after it lost control on a bend and collided with an oncoming vehicle, causing the death of another road user.

The justices found no relevant mechanical defect or road contamination. They found that the claimant applied the brakes after the vehicle had begun to skid, probably causing the wheels to lock, and that this was not the conduct of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. The central issues were whether the finding of heavy braking was open to the justices and whether it proved careless driving beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The question posed by the justices was answered in the affirmative, and the claimant was ordered to pay agreed costs of £2,000.
2. Careless driving may arise over a period of time and through a series of actions or omissions having an interactive relationship. The prosecution was entitled to invite the justices to consider the driving from beginning to end. It was unnecessary to formulate separate allegations concerning the initial speed, loss of control, steering response and braking.
3. The justices were entitled to find that the claimant had applied the brakes heavily. The tachograph evidence, tyre markings, the claimant’s evidence and his concession that braking during a skid would make matters worse provided a sufficient evidential basis. The finding was not perverse and could not be challenged on the case stated appeal.
4. The court accepted the established principle, illustrated by NG Chun Pui & Others v Lee Chuen Tat and Another [1998] RTR 298, that a driver confronted by a perilous emergency not of his own making should not be judged by an unduly critical standard. The principle was unavailable where the driver had created the difficult situation by his own carelessness.
5. The justices were entitled to infer careless driving from the braking, its likely effect in locking the wheels, and the surrounding circumstances. It was unnecessary that every precise detail of the braking event should have been established by direct evidence. No error of law had been shown.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered the justices’ question in the affirmative.
• Justices for the Commissioner of Humberside: convicted the claimant of driving without due care and attention.