Meeking, R. v

Section 22A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not confined to interference with a vehicle before it is driven, to external acts, or to acts that physically alter the vehicle. An intentional act affecting a mechanical part of a vehicle while it is being driven may amount to interference with that vehicle, where it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the act was dangerous.

Distracting a driver, without more, is not necessarily interference with the vehicle. The provision requires a deliberate act, but not a positive intention to endanger life.

The appellant was convicted by the Recorder of Bristol on 2 November 2011 of the unlawful act manslaughter of her husband. During an argument while he was driving, she intentionally pulled the handbrake. The car spun into an oncoming vehicle and he died.

The alleged unlawful act was endangering road users contrary to section 22A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Recorder ruled that pulling the handbrake while the car was moving could constitute interference with a motor vehicle. The appellant appealed against that construction.

The central issue was whether section 22A(1)(b) extended to that conduct.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder correctly held that intentionally pulling the handbrake of a moving car could fall within “interferes with a motor vehicle” in section 22A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
2. The ordinary language of the provision imposed no temporal limit. It was not confined to acts done before a vehicle was driven. Such a limitation would create an unjustified anomaly: it would cover an obstacle placed on a road but not an object dropped onto a passing vehicle. Nor was there a policy reason to criminalise interference creating danger before driving but not during driving.
3. The interference need not be external to the vehicle. Interference with its braking system is interference with a mechanical part of the vehicle itself. A jury could therefore regard the appellant’s act as interference with the motor vehicle. Mere distraction of a motorist would be different, because it would not itself interfere with the vehicle.
4. The court added, expressly obiter, that concern might arise if an essentially negligent act, arguably short of gross negligence, were prosecuted as unlawful act manslaughter through section 22A. In such a case it would be necessary to consider Andrews [1937] AC 576. No such issue arose here; on the facts the jury could not have returned any verdict other than guilty had the case been presented as gross negligence manslaughter.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2012] EWCA Crim 641.
• Recorder of Bristol: convicted the appellant of unlawful act manslaughter on 2 November 2011.