Cawthorn v Director of Public Prosecutions 2000
- Reported: [2000] RTR 45
- Year: 2000
- Court: Queen's Bench Division
FACTS:
Mr Cawthorn had left his car on a hill, with the hazard lights left on, in order to post a letter. His car had rolled down the hill, probably due to the release of the handbreak by a passenger, and collided with a wall, causing damage to the wall and rendering the car un-driveable.
The defendant had run to the vehicle and secured it, but had run off when a police officer arrived at the scene, and had only contacted the police later through his father.
The Crown Court confirmed the facts. The defendant was the driver of the car, that he had been driving the vehicle that he had parked for his own purpose, that he secured the vehicle, and although there was a break in the driving of the vehicle by the defendant it was found at the time of the accident he was still making his journey.
HELD:
The duty imposed on a driver of a vehicle under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by section 48 of and paragraph 72 of Schedule 4 to the Traffic Act 1991, to stop and report an accident included situations where the driver was not actually driving at the time.
The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court held when dismissing an appeal by way of case stated that Cawthorn failed to stop and give his name and address, and failing to report an accident under section 170 of the 1988 Act, as amended.
Mr Justice Forbes agreed with the defendant’s submissions that the offence under section 170(4) of the 1988 Act was not a driving offence as such.
The crucial point to the case was that the defendant was still in the course of completing his journey. This was evident by switching on the hazard lights. Mr Justice Forbes held this action indicted an intention to return, and the defendant remained the driver until he finished his journey. (see Jones v Prothero [1952] 1 All ER 434 and Pinner v Everett [1969] 1 WLR 1266).
It was found that an intervening act by a passenger did not make that person the driver. On any common sense view at no time did any other person have sufficient control, such that the defendant ceased to be the driver and was replaced by someone else.
The judgement concluded by finding that as to who was the driver was a question of fact and there was ample evidence for the crown court to find that the defendant was the driver at the material time. Thus there is a duty to report an accident though not actually driving.
Lord Justice Rose agreed.
Related posts:
