Greenhalgh, R v

On a submission of no case to answer, the question is whether the prosecution evidence could properly support a conviction. It is insufficient that the defence can identify a possible route to acquittal. Assertions in a mixed police statement are admissible, although their weight may differ from sworn and tested evidence. A misdirection about such a statement does not make a conviction unsafe unless it could have affected the verdict.

In sentencing for causing death by careless driving under section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a driving disqualification should not exceed what is necessary for punishment. Rehabilitation, completed community penalties and the offender’s need to drive for normal employment may justify reducing a period above the mandatory minimum.

The appellant was convicted by a jury at Swindon Crown Court of causing the death of an elderly pedestrian by careless driving, contrary to section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He received a community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, a three-month curfew and an 18-month driving disqualification.

He appealed against conviction on the grounds that there was no case to answer and that the judge had misdirected the jury about his police interview and insufficiently put the defence case. He also appealed against sentence. The central issues were whether the evidence could properly support the verdict, whether the interview direction rendered it unsafe, and whether the period of disqualification was excessive.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The prosecution case was properly left to the jury. The correct question on a submission of no case was whether there was evidence on which a jury could properly convict, rather than whether the defence could formulate a possible basis for acquittal. It was open to the jury to find that the appellant had not noticed the pedestrian until too late because he had not paid sufficient attention.
2. The trial judge’s direction that the appellant’s police interview was not evidence was not strictly correct. The interview was a mixed statement, containing both admissions and assertions. Its assertions were admissible, although the jury could take account of the fact that they were neither sworn nor tested by cross-examination when assessing their weight.
3. The error did not affect the safety of the verdict. The material issues were where the appellant first saw the pedestrian and whether he gave any warning. The appellant’s accounts of when he first saw the pedestrian were inconsistent, and he accepted that he had not sounded his horn. The jury could properly conclude either that he saw the pedestrian too late through inadequate attention, or that he saw him in time to give a warning but failed to do so. Either conclusion justified conviction.
4. The appeal against sentence succeeded to a limited extent. The appellant had completed the unpaid-work requirement. An 18-month disqualification was longer than necessary in light of the other punishment imposed and his dependence on a driving licence for his normal employment. The court substituted a 12-month disqualification.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2014] EWCA Crim 2084, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent of reducing the driving disqualification from 18 months to 12 months.
• Swindon Crown Court — Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted on 24 April 2014 of causing death by careless driving contrary to section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 15 May 2014 he received a community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, a three-month curfew and an 18-month driving disqualification.