Attwater, R v

Evidence of a collision occurring after allegedly dangerous driving may be admissible as relevant evidence of the danger created, provided its admission is fair. Its admission will not render a conviction unsafe where the judge fairly directs the jury on possible contributory causes.

A conviction is not unsafe merely because a possible statutory defence was not left to the jury if the appellate court is sure that the jury would have rejected it. The court provisionally considered that a failure-to-stop offence is committed when the driver does not stop almost immediately and as soon as it is safe and convenient, so that Criminal Law Act 1967 section 3 could not prevent an offence already completed.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Maidstone of dangerous driving after undertaking another vehicle on a motorway slip road, pulling in front of it and braking until it stopped. A third vehicle then collided with the rear of the stopped vehicle. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, disqualified for three years and required to take an extended driving test.

He appealed against conviction and sentence. The conviction appeal challenged the admission of evidence of the later collision and the failure to leave a defence under Criminal Law Act 1967 section 3. A further, unpursued ground concerned the use of a photograph in cross-examination. The central issue was whether any error made the dangerous-driving conviction unsafe.

1. The conviction appeal was dismissed. Evidence of the later collision, damage and injuries was admissible. It was relevant to whether the appellant’s manoeuvre was dangerous, rather than merely to what might have occurred. The trial judge was also entitled to reject the contention that admission would be unfair. His summing-up made clear that the collision could have had several contributory causes, and the evidence did not render the conviction unsafe.

2. The court held that the conviction was safe even if the judge ought to have directed the jury on Criminal Law Act 1967 section 3. The court’s task was to decide safety. It was sure that the jury would have rejected the proposed defence on the facts.

3. The court nevertheless gave provisional guidance on the legal issue. Applying R v Hallinan, it considered that a driver who must stop following an accident fails to comply with the duty if he does not stop almost immediately and as soon as it is safe and convenient. On that approach, by the time the appellant stopped the other car near the motorway, any alleged failure-to-stop offence had already been completed. Section 3 could therefore not be invoked to prevent it. The court did not need to decide whether that issue was one of law for the judge or fact for the jury.

4. The judge had been wrong to prevent counsel from showing a photograph to a witness merely because it had not yet been formally proved. A photograph cannot ordinarily be exhibited before proof, but it may be put to a witness where the judge is satisfied that evidence proving it will be adduced.

5. The sentence appeal was allowed. The judge had declined a pre-sentence report and had sentenced without allowing meaningful mitigation. The Court of Appeal resentenced the appellant. A custodial sentence was inevitable, but six months’ imprisonment and a two-year disqualification, with the extended test requirement unchanged, were appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2010] EWCA Crim 2399, dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing imprisonment from 12 to six months and disqualification from three to two years.
• Crown Court at Maidstone — convicted the appellant of dangerous driving on 6 May 2010, acquitted him of battery, and imposed 12 months’ imprisonment, three years’ disqualification and an extended driving test requirement.