R v Marchant, R v Muntz [2004]

FACTS:-

The Second Defendant who was a farmer, employed the First Defendant as a tractor driver to drive a loading machine attached to which was a grab with six tynes on the lower jaw, one metre long and pointing forward, and three tynes on the upper jaw pointing down. The vehicle, which had been bought from a reputable dealer, was specifically authorised by the Secretary of State, under s.44(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for use on the road and was inspected annually by insurers.

The First Defendant drove the vehicle, with the grab in the recommended position, along a public road towards the farm. The entrance to the farm was blocked by a van waiting to turn onto the road, and the First Defendant positioned the vehicle on the correct side of the road and waited for an opportunity to turn into the farm. A motorcycle, travelling very fast in the opposite direction along the road, collided with the nearside tyne of the lower jaw of the grab and as a result the motor cyclist suffered fatal injuries.

The Defendants were charged under s.1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with causing death by dangerous driving, within the meaning of s.2A(2) of the Act, in that it would have been “obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.”

At the trial it was submitted on behalf of the Defendants that, as the authorisation by the Secretary of State for the use of the tractor in its condition on the road exempted those who used the vehicle on the road from prosecution under s.40A of the Act, as a matter of public policy the exemption should also apply to offences under ss.1 and 2.

The recorder rejected that submission, and the prosecution contended that the “state” of the vehicle for the purpose of s.2A(2) included the manufactured condition of the vehicle if it would have been obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its state as supplied by the manufacturer would be dangerous.

The Defendants were convicted and appealed against their conviction:

HELD:-

The appeals were allowed and the convictions were quashed. 

It was held even where a vehicle fell within the category of vehicles authorised by the Secretary of State for use on the road, where s.40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was disapplied, it would nonetheless be appropriate to prosecute, under s.1 or 2 of the Act. 

A driver who had so manoeuvred the vehicle as to create a danger additional to that created by the mere presence of the vehicle on the road, the recorder was correct in concluding that the exemption from prosecution under s.40A provided by s.44 , did not provide a defence to a prosecution under s.1, but that the term “current state [of the vehicle]” in s.2A(2) implied a state different from the original or manufactured state and that as the alleged obvious dangerous condition of the vehicle stemmed purely from its inherent design rather than from lack of maintenance or positive alteration, therefore the Defendants should not have been prosecuted on the basis that the “current state” of the vehicle was dangerous. 

No related posts.