Muhammed, R. v

For causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving, the prosecution need not prove that the dangerous driving was the sole or major cause. It suffices that it caused or made a significant, rather than negligible, contribution.

An intervening event does not break causation merely because its precise mechanism was unforeseeable. The question is whether the general form and risk of further harm were reasonably foreseeable. A jury may assess that issue from the risks inherent in the manner of driving, including vehicle malfunction.

Under Road Traffic Act 1988, a vehicle’s current state can include an inadequacy in the restraint of an occupant if the statutory thresholds are met. A defective or unused restraint may therefore be relevant to whether driving was dangerous.

The applicant was convicted at Hull Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving, two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. He had driven at more than 100 mph on the M62 in circumstances from which the jury could infer competitive driving with a co-accused. A rear tyre then blew out, causing his vehicle to leave the motorway and collide with a tree. His young son died and his wife and daughter suffered serious injuries.

The appeal challenged the refusal of a submission of no case to answer on causation. It also challenged a supplemental direction that inadequate seat-belt restraint could be relevant to dangerous driving. The central issues were whether the blowout broke the chain of causation and whether restraint deficiencies could bear on the statutory concept of dangerous driving.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were not arguably unsafe.

2. There was evidence from which the jury could find dangerous driving: the applicant drove competitively at greatly above the speed limit, refused to yield the outer lane, and travelled very close to the co-accused’s vehicle. The jury could also assess his duress case and his knowledge of the tyre’s condition.

3. The judge correctly left causation to the jury. Dangerous driving need not be the sole or major cause of death or injury. The prosecution did not have to prove that the precise mechanism of the collision was foreseeable. Applying the approach in R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 407, an intervening event does not necessarily relieve a driver of liability where the general form and risk of further harm were reasonably foreseeable. That approach is not confined to third-party acts and can encompass unpredictable vehicle malfunctions.

4. The tyre blowout did not require the case to be withdrawn. The evidence permitted findings of deterioration, excessive speed, increased risk to tyre integrity and loss of control, and inadequate child restraint. Whether the dangerous driving caused or contributed to the death and serious injuries was for the jury.

5. A restraint deficiency may be relevant under section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The court held that the vehicle’s current state can include the manner in which an occupant is restrained, provided the deficiency would be obvious to a competent and careful driver and would create an obvious danger. Although the final sentence of the supplemental direction might in isolation have confused the jury, the verdict concerning the seat-belted wife and the evidence of dangerous driving showed no unsafe divergence in the verdicts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed: [2021] EWCA Crim 802.
• Hull Crown Court: The applicant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. The sentencing outcome stated in the judgment was four and a half years’ imprisonment and driving disqualification.