Branchflower, R v

For aggravated vehicle taking under section 12A of the Theft Act 1968, whether an event is an accident depends on the statutory context. The term can include an untoward occurrence with adverse physical consequences even though a deliberate act forms part of the causal chain. A deliberate use of an unlawfully taken vehicle which causes injury or death does not therefore preclude a conviction based on an accident under section 12A(2)(b). Such a count is not necessarily a true alternative to murder.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murder after the jury found that, while taking a Ford Mondeo, he deliberately drove it at the owner with intent to kill or cause really serious harm. He was also convicted of aggravated vehicle taking. The latter count alleged that the owner’s death resulted from an accident.

He appealed the aggravated-vehicle-taking conviction on the ground that it was inconsistent with the murder verdict. He also sought to renew an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal against the murder conviction. The central issue was whether a death caused by deliberate driving could be an accident for section 12A of the Theft Act 1968.

1. The appeal against the aggravated-vehicle-taking conviction was dismissed. The renewed application for leave to appeal against the murder conviction was also dismissed, there being no arguable ground to challenge that conviction.

2. Section 12A of the Theft Act 1968 contains no definition of accident. The word takes its meaning from its statutory setting. It does not invariably require an unintended or fortuitous event.

3. The court adopted the approach in R v Billingham [1979] 1 WLR 747. An accident may be an untoward occurrence with adverse physical results notwithstanding that a deliberate act by a person is one event in the causal chain.

4. Section 12A is concerned with the consequences occurring after an unlawful taking and before recovery of the vehicle. In this case, the vehicle was in motion and its movement caused the victim’s death. That conclusion was not displaced by the jury’s finding that the appellant deliberately drove at the victim.

5. Count 3 was not a true alternative to the murder count. The jury’s murder verdict was therefore not inconsistent with conviction and sentence for aggravated vehicle taking.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against conviction for aggravated vehicle taking and dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against the murder conviction.
• Crown Court at Manchester The appellant was convicted of murder on 28 February 2003 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He had pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking and received three years’ detention, concurrent with the life sentence.