Uthayakumar, R v

A conviction under section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires more than an uninsured driver’s involvement in a fatal collision. The Crown must prove an act or omission in controlling the vehicle which involves fault and contributes more than minimally to the death. It need not be the principal cause and need not amount to careless or inconsiderate driving.

An appeal following a guilty plea may exceptionally succeed where a legal error deprived the defendant of a viable defence and allowing the conviction to stand would cause substantial injustice. A retrial after the conviction is quashed must also serve the interests of justice, having regard to the evidential strength of the prosecution and defence, culpability, and punishment already served.

These were conjoined appeals by two uninsured drivers who had pleaded guilty to causing death by driving while uninsured under section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Both had been advised, consistently with earlier Court of Appeal authority, that the Crown did not have to prove fault in their driving.

After their pleas and sentences, the Supreme Court in R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56 clarified that the offence required fault in the driving which contributed more than minimally to the death. The appellants sought extensions of time, contending that their pleas had been entered under a material mistake of law and that each had a viable defence.

The central issues were whether the convictions should be quashed despite the guilty pleas and, if so, whether retrials would be in the interests of justice.

1. The court granted extensions of time and allowed both appeals. It quashed both convictions. It refused the Crown’s application for retrials.

2. Section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as clarified by the Supreme Court in R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56, required proof of conduct in controlling the vehicle which was open to proper criticism, involved some fault, and contributed more than minimally to the death. The presence of an uninsured vehicle on the road and its causal involvement in a death did not suffice. The act or omission need not be the principal cause and need not amount to careless or inconsiderate driving.

3. The appellants had pleaded guilty on the erroneous basis that they had no defence to a homicide offence. The court held that this created substantial injustice. The Crown’s proposed allegations of fault were speculative, particularly in Clayton’s case. Each appellant had a defence which was far from fanciful and might well succeed before a jury. This was therefore an exceptional case in which the court should intervene despite guilty pleas.

4. A retrial would not be in the interests of justice. The prosecution cases were weak and the defence cases potentially very strong. Both appellants were of previous good character, were barely culpable if at all, and had already endured the consequences of conviction and served a substantial part of their sentences. The proceedings should therefore end.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the conjoined appeals, quashed both convictions, and refused retrials.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: Uthayakumar pleaded guilty on 17 December 2012 and was sentenced on 24 April 2013. No lower-court citation was given.
• Woolwich Crown Court: Clayton pleaded guilty on 25 February 2013 and was sentenced on 8 April 2013. No lower-court citation was given.