McDermott v DPP [1997]

FACTS:

The Defendant was driving his horsebox on a narrow stretch of road leading to a stables; a stationary vehicle, in which its driver was sitting, had left a narrow gap for vehicles to pass. The Defendant, who drove into collision with the stationary vehicle, caused further damage by driving through the gap, drove on for some 80 yards, then stopped and returned to the stationary vehicle. He did not give his name and address or insurance details. He appeared before justices on charges of contravening section 170(1)(b)(i)(2)(3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, in failing to stop, provide details of his name and address and insurance, and contravening section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1988 in driving uninsured. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and denied having been asked for the details. He was convicted and sentenced and ordered to pay to the driver of the stationary vehicle compensation for damage to it.

The Defendant appealed to the Crown Court against conviction for failing to stop and the compensation order, abandoning the appeal against conviction for failing to report the accident; his appeal against the no insurance conviction was not opposed, as he had produced satisfactory documentation. The Crown Court, who found that the driver of the stationary vehicle had asked for details from the Defendant and could not remember specifically asking for his name and address, were of opinion that the offence of failing to stop was completed when he drove 80 yards to the end of the road, and dismissed the appeal.

On the Defendant’s appeal, on the questions whether, he having driven for 80 yards after the initial point of impact, the Crown Court were entitled to find the offence under s.170(4) proved, and to make the compensation order in the light of s.35(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act of 1973. 

HELD:

Held, dismissing the appeal against conviction,

(1) that, on a charge of failing to stop, contrary to s.170(2)(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the decision whether the Defendant stopped was one for the tribunal as a matter of fact and degree in each particular case, having regard to all the circumstances and that, since the Crown Court’s conclusion could not be shown to be irrational the appeal against conviction for failing to stop had to fail.

 (2) Allowing the appeal against the compensation order, that, under s.35(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, it was a statutory precondition to an award of compensation that the Defendant was uninsured and that, since the Defendant had been insured, there was no jurisdiction to make the compensation order.

Simon Brown LJ held that it was a clear statutory precondition for the making of a compensation order in these circumstances that the offender be uninsured and found the Defendant was not. Nor indeed as it happens was he even under any statutory obligation to disclose to Mrs Hancock the details of his insurance. That obligation does not arise under s.170 and would only arise under s.154 “on demand for such particulars by a person making a claim.” Mrs Hancock had at no material time either made a claim or demanded the particulars.

Simon Brown LJ therefore allowed the defendant’s appeal against the compensation order although the appeal against conviction was dismissed.  Gage J. agreed that the appeal against the compensation order should be allowed and the appeal against conviction be dismissed.

Related posts:

1. Sadiku v DPP [2000]
2. R v Austin (Nicholas) [1996]