Bannister, R. v

The test for dangerous driving under Road Traffic Act 1991 section 2A is wholly objective. It is assessed by reference to the competent and careful driver, not by reference to the accused driver's individual expertise or inexperience.

Under section 2A(3), circumstances within the accused's knowledge may be relevant where they concern matters such as the driver's condition, the vehicle, road or weather conditions. Special driving skill, or lack of skill, is different. It would alter the statutory standard and is therefore irrelevant to whether driving was dangerous.

The appellant, an experienced police road traffic officer, drove at speeds exceeding 110 mph on an unlit motorway in torrential rain. His vehicle aquaplaned and crashed. He was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of dangerous driving and was sentenced to imprisonment, disqualification and an extended driving test.

He appealed against conviction and sentence. An earlier constitution of the Court of Appeal allowed his sentence appeal and imposed a nominal fine and 12 months' disqualification: [2009] EWCA Crim 1350. The conviction appeal was adjourned for full argument on whether an advanced police driver's skill was a relevant circumstance under section 2A(3).

The further issue was whether the Recorder's summing-up had made the dangerous-driving test sufficiently clear to the jury.

1. The appeal against conviction was allowed. The conviction for dangerous driving was quashed and a conviction for careless driving was substituted. No retrial was ordered.

2. Section 2A establishes a wholly objective test. The fact-finder must ask whether the manner of driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and whether its danger would have been obvious to such a driver. The statutory standard cannot be modified by the particular accused's advanced driving skills or lack of experience.

3. Section 2A(3) requires regard to circumstances within the accused's knowledge, but those are circumstances such as alcohol consumption, susceptibility to hypoglycaemic episodes, the state of the vehicle, and road or weather conditions. They do not include personal skill. To treat exceptional skill as relevant would substitute a specially skilled driver for the competent and careful driver specified by Parliament. It would also logically permit a lower standard for an inexperienced driver.

4. The court held that Milton v CPS [2007] EWHC 532 (Admin) was incorrectly decided insofar as it treated an advanced police driver's special skill as a relevant circumstance. That approach was incompatible with the statutory objective test.

5. Although the Recorder's direction on skill had been more favourable to the appellant than the law allowed, the conviction remained unsafe. Extensive evidence and directions concerning whether the appellant was responding to an emergency created a real and substantial risk that the jury had been confused about the statutory test. The Crown accepted that the conviction could not safely stand. Careless driving was inevitable on the accepted driving, and no useful purpose would be served by a retrial.

6. The court retained the £50 fine, reduced disqualification to three months, and quashed the requirement to pass an extended driving test. The further sentence appeal was allowed to that extent only.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the dangerous-driving conviction, substituted careless driving, and varied the sentence in [2009] EWCA Crim 1571.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Earlier allowed the sentence appeal, substituting a £50 fine and 12 months' disqualification in [2009] EWCA Crim 1350.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: Convicted the appellant of dangerous driving and imposed 20 weeks' imprisonment, two years' disqualification and an extended driving test.