Martin v R.

A conviction for aiding and abetting dangerous driving cannot rest on a direction that a qualified accompanying driver simply should have stopped the driver. The jury must be directed on the dangerous driving alleged, the supervisor’s knowledge of it, any opportunity deliberately not taken to intervene, and the intention and actual effect of the omission in assisting or encouraging the driving.

A direction on aiding and abetting a section 20 offence is likewise inadequate if it mixes objective and subjective foresight or fails to identify the relevant ingredients. An appellate court should not uphold a conviction by recasting the prosecution case after trial. A retrial may be refused where there are grave doubts that the necessary ingredients could be proved.

Martin, a qualified driver but not a professional instructor, sat in the front passenger seat while Christopher Love, a learner driver, drove a Renault Clio. Love lost control on a bend. Love and a passenger were killed, and the driver of an oncoming car was seriously injured.

At Winchester Crown Court, Martin was convicted of aiding and abetting dangerous driving causing death and of aiding and abetting the infliction of grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Attorney General also sought leave to refer his 18-month sentence as unduly lenient.

The appeal concerned whether one count disclosed an offence known to law, whether the jury directions on complicity were adequate, and whether any retrial should be ordered.

Appeal allowed; no retrial ordered. The court held that the count alleging that Martin aided and abetted Love to cause Love’s own death by dangerous driving disclosed no offence known to law. The offence required the principal to have caused the death of another person.

1. The directions on aiding and abetting were woefully inadequate. The Recorder told the jury that Martin would aid and abet if Love drove dangerously and Martin should have stopped him. That formulation did not identify the matters that had to be proved about Love’s dangerous driving, Martin’s knowledge, his opportunity to intervene, or his intention and actual encouragement through deliberate non-intervention.

2. The direction on the section 20 count was also insufficient. It mixed objective and subjective foresight. Foresight by the driver that harm might be caused could not alone establish Martin’s complicity without identifying the ingredients of the dangerous driving and Martin’s own required state of mind and participation.

3. The court indicated possible directions for a case based on a qualified accompanying driver’s omission, while making clear that it was not deciding whether every suggested element, including foresight of death, was required. In particular, that unresolved issue was left for future argument.

4. The court declined to assess the convictions by reference to earlier bad driving which the prosecution had not relied upon at trial. It could not say that a properly directed jury would necessarily have returned the same verdict. Given the uncertainty about speed, the tyre defect and the cause of Love’s steering, there were grave doubts whether the ingredients of aiding and abetting could properly be proved. A retrial was therefore not ordered.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed Martin’s appeal against conviction and declined to order a retrial. The Attorney General’s proposed unduly lenient sentence reference became academic.

2. Crown Court at Winchester Martin was convicted before Mr Recorder N. Atkinson QC and a jury of offences arising from the fatal collision, including aiding and abetting the infliction of grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.