Jones v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

The Crown Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 48, extends to confirming, reversing or varying the whole decision appealed from, including sentence imposed by another Crown Court on committal for sentence.

Careless driving requires proof that the defendant’s manner of driving fell below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. The driver’s physical condition may be relevant evidence, but it cannot alone establish careless driving. A conviction founded solely on the driver’s condition cannot stand.

The appellant had been convicted by a magistrates’ court of dangerous driving, failing to provide a specimen and driving without insurance. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence and received suspended custodial sentences and ancillary orders.

On appeal to the Crown Court, the dangerous-driving conviction was replaced by a conviction for careless driving. The Crown Court varied some consequences but considered that it lacked power to vary the sentence imposed on the unsuccessful specimen charge by another Crown Court.

The Administrative Court considered the Crown Court’s powers under section 48 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and whether careless driving could be proved solely by showing that the driver’s physical condition made it unreasonable for him to drive.

1. Section 48 jurisdiction. The Crown Court’s appeal is a rehearing. Following Dutta v Westcott (1987) 84 Cr.App.R. 103, the decision appealed from includes the whole decision made on the relevant occasion. That includes conviction and sentence. Where sentence was imposed by another Crown Court on an earlier committal for sentence, the Crown Court hearing the appeal may nevertheless confirm, reverse or vary it under section 48.
2. Careless driving. The statutory focus is the way the defendant drives. The definition in section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the driving to fall below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. The court followed the reasoning in R v Webster [2006] EWCA Crim 415, [2006] 2 Cr.App.R. 6. The driver’s condition is relevant and admissible under section 3ZA(3), but it does not determine whether the driving was careless.
3. The approach applies equally to careless driving and dangerous driving. The statutory distinction is the degree of departure from the competent and careful driver standard, not a different focus on the manner of driving.
4. The Crown Court’s findings showed that the careless-driving conviction rested on the proposition that a reasonably prudent driver would not have driven in the appellant’s physical condition. They did not identify how the appellant’s manner of driving contributed to the accident. The legal basis of the conviction therefore fell away.
5. The careless-driving conviction was reversed and quashed. The sentence for failing to provide a specimen was varied to a £10 fine, with one day’s imprisonment in default deemed served, and the disqualification period was reduced to 12 months. The order reversing the extended re-test requirement was affirmed. The no-insurance sentence remained unchanged.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on a case stated from the Crown Court, answered the first question affirmatively and the second negatively; reversed and quashed the careless-driving conviction and varied the related sentence and disqualification orders.
• Croydon Crown Court: on appeal from Croydon Magistrates’ Court, acquitted the appellant of dangerous driving but convicted him of careless driving, failing to provide a specimen and having no insurance.
• Croydon Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of dangerous driving, failing to provide a specimen and driving without insurance.