Maxwell, R v

For an offence under section 22A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, interference with a driver alone does not amount to interference with a motor vehicle. The prosecution must prove interference with the vehicle itself, which may include interference with a mechanical part or control of it. A jury direction which permits conviction on the legally insufficient basis of interference with the driver makes the conviction unsafe where the jury may have proceeded on that basis. The absence of an objection to the direction at trial does not cure the resulting injustice.

The appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of causing danger to road users by interfering with a motor vehicle, contrary to section 22A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The prosecution alleged that, during a taxi journey, he and others acted jointly by interfering with the driver and the taxi's controls. The appellant denied any interference and said that the passengers had sought to leave because of the taxi driver's manner of driving.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the judge's direction allowed conviction for interference with the driver, rather than requiring interference with the vehicle itself.

1. Appeal allowed. The direction permitted the jury to convict if sure that the appellant had interfered with the taxi driver or with the driver's ability to drive safely. That was a misdirection. Section 22A(1)(b) requires interference with the motor vehicle, not simply interference with its driver.

2. The court followed Meeking [2012] EWCA Crim 641. Mere distraction of a motorist is not interference with the vehicle. Interference with a mechanical component of a vehicle, such as its braking system, may satisfy the statutory requirement.

3. The evidence could have supported a finding that the appellant interfered with the steering wheel. However, the direction did not require the jury to be sure of that fact. It also allowed conviction on the alternative basis that the appellant had interfered with the driver, and the jury were not bound to find a joint enterprise.

4. The court could not be satisfied that the conviction was safe. Counsel's failure to object when the directions were given did not alter that conclusion. The Crown's application for a retrial was rejected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against conviction and rejected the Crown's request for a retrial: [2014] EWCA Crim 417.
• Crown Court at Lewes: on 12 April 2013, convicted the appellant after trial by jury of causing danger to road users by interfering with a motor vehicle.