Plunkett, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Whether conduct amounts to careless driving is a question of fact for the trial court, applying the standard of the reasonable competent driver. A driver who becomes distracted by an event requiring attention remains under a continuing duty to take account of traffic ahead. The distraction may be relevant, but it does not automatically excuse a collision. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the duration of the distraction, the driver’s speed, the opportunity to reduce speed or stop, and any assumption about the road being clear.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Truro against his conviction at West Cornwall Magistrates’ Court for careless driving contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had collided with stationary traffic on a dual carriageway after becoming distracted by children near the opposite carriageway. The Crown Court found that he had departed from the standard of the reasonable competent driver and dismissed the appeal. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether the facts found supported the conviction.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The facts found by the Crown Court supported the conviction for careless driving.
2. The question under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was whether the driver had departed from the standard of the reasonable competent driver. That was a question of fact for the court in each case.
3. A distraction caused by an important event or emergency could be relevant, but it did not provide an automatic defence. The court had to decide whether the driver had allowed the distraction to continue for too long in the circumstances.
4. The driver’s attention to the children was, in principle, proper. It did not relieve him of his separate duty to take account of vehicles ahead. He could have reduced his speed more substantially, observed the children for less time, or avoided proceeding on the assumption that the road ahead was clear.
5. The stationary traffic had already remained stopped for approximately 30 to 60 seconds. The Crown Court was entitled to conclude that, travelling at about 22 miles per hour, the claimant had allowed himself to remain distracted for too long and had therefore driven without due care and attention.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay £650 towards the costs of the appeal. Enforcement was stayed, subject to his providing the Magistrates’ Court and the Administrative Court within seven days with a full written declaration of his means, income and assets supported by relevant documentation. The stay could be revisited following the means enquiry.

• West Cornwall Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of careless driving on 16 May 2002.
• Crown Court at Truro: dismissed the appeal against conviction following the hearing on 21 November 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated.