Muhammad v East London Magistrates' Court

On an appeal by way of case stated, factual conclusions will stand unless no reasonable tribunal could have reached them. The offence of driving without due care and attention is judged objectively by asking whether the driving fell below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

A rear-end collision with a stationary vehicle can ordinarily provide a prima facie case of careless driving and may support conviction where the driver offers no evidential alternative explanation. Mere speculation about possible external causes is insufficient. The tribunal of fact may also treat an apology and an unexplained assertion of ignorance after the collision as evidence supporting guilt.

The appellant was convicted by East London Magistrates' Court of driving without due care and attention, contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. His vehicle had collided with the rear of a Tesco delivery van, which was stationary and was propelled into another stationary vehicle.

Neither prosecution witness had seen the appellant's driving before impact. The appellant submitted that there was no case to answer and that the collision might have resulted from another vehicle striking his own. The central questions were whether the evidence was sufficient both to require an answer and to justify conviction, and whether the magistrates' factual conclusions could be disturbed on a case stated.

1. Extension of time. Although the appeal notice was filed several weeks late, time was extended. There had been repeated attempts to file the appeal, the delay was short, and no prejudice was caused. Compliance with time limits remained important, particularly in criminal proceedings.
2. Standard on a case stated. The questions whether there was a case to answer and whether the appellant was guilty were questions of fact. The appeal could succeed only if no reasonable tribunal could have reached the magistrates' conclusions. A complaint that evidence was given inappropriate weight should instead be pursued by an appeal to the Crown Court, where the evidence would be reheard.
3. Careless driving. The offence under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is established where the manner of driving falls below that expected of a competent and careful driver. The test is objective and factual.
4. A driver colliding with the rear of a stationary vehicle, without explanation, may provide sufficient evidence of careless driving. Unless there is clear evidence that the collision was caused solely by factors other than the manner of driving, such evidence will normally establish a prima facie case and defeat a submission of no case to answer.
5. For conviction, the tribunal may draw the inference that the collision resulted from careless driving where the driver is unable or unwilling to provide an alternative explanation. A merely speculative possibility, raised only in argument, need not be accepted. The magistrates were also entitled to regard the appellant's apology and statement that he did not know how the collision occurred as evidence supporting guilt.
6. Disposition. The magistrates were entitled both to find a case to answer and to convict. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated against the conviction by East London Magistrates' Court was dismissed.