Introduction

The case of A, R. v ([2020] EWCA Crim 407) represents a pivotal moment in the jurisprudence of dangerous driving within England and Wales. This judgment, delivered by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on March 17, 2020, addresses critical issues surrounding legal causation and dangerousness in the context of a traffic collision. The appellant, referred to as the respondent, faced charges of causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving following a collision on the M1 motorway in November 2017. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, illuminating the legal principles established and their ramifications for future cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The respondent was charged with two counts: causing death by dangerous driving (count 1) and causing serious injury by dangerous driving (count 2). These charges were related to a collision involving her stationary car on the motorway and a truck driven by a co-defendant, L, who ultimately fell asleep at the wheel, leading to the accident. The prosecution argued that, despite the respondent's vehicle being stationary, her actions constituted "driving" and were a contributing factor to the collision.

At trial, the judge ruled that while the respondent's driving was indeed dangerous, the causation element—linking her actions directly to the collision—was insufficient. The judge held that the truck driver's (L) dangerous driving was a new and intervening act that broke the chain of causation. Consequently, a no case to answer was submitted by the prosecution, a decision which the Court of Appeal later overturned, ordering a fresh trial on the grounds that the initial ruling overly confined the interpretation of legal causation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references several key precedents that have shaped the understanding of causation in criminal law:

• Girdler [2009] EWCA Crim 2666: This case established criteria for when a new and intervening act breaks the chain of causation in dangerous driving cases. It emphasized that for the chain of causation to remain unbroken, the intervening act must not be so insurmountable or independent that it overrides the defendant’s original act.
• R. v Maybin [2012] 2 SCR 30: The Canadian Supreme Court clarified that legal causation does not require the precise foreseeability of the intervening act. Instead, the general nature of the intervening act and the risk of non-trivial harm must be reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial offense.
• Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] EWCA Crim 690: This case reinforced the notion that specific circumstances of an intervening event need not be foreseen, as long as the general type of harm was foreseeable.

These precedents collectively informed the Court of Appeal's approach to evaluating the respondent's appeal, particularly concerning the scope of causation and the foreseeability of subsequent events leading to harm.

Legal Reasoning

The core of the Court's reasoning centered on the principles of causation and dangerousness. The trial judge had correctly established that the respondent's actions were dangerous, adhering to the Highway Code's standards. However, when it came to causation, the initial ruling was deemed too narrow.

The Court of Appeal criticized the trial judge's interpretation of Girdler, arguing that it unnecessarily limited the scope of causation by requiring a specific foreseeability of the intervening act—in this case, the truck driver's lapse into dangerous driving. Drawing on Maybin and Wallace, the Court emphasized that legal causation should consider whether the general nature and risk of the intervening act were foreseeable, not the exact circumstances.

The respondent's act of stopping on the hard shoulder without hazard lights was identified as creating dangerous conditions. The Court held that a jury could reasonably foresee that such a state could lead to a collision, regardless of the specific manner in which the truck driver lost control. Therefore, the chain of causation was not effectively broken by the truck driver's actions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the prosecution of dangerous driving cases. By broadening the interpretation of causation, the Court of Appeal ensures that defendants cannot easily evade liability through unforeseen intervening acts. It underscores the principle that even if a third party's actions contribute to the harm, the original defendant's dangerous behavior can still be legally culpable if it created circumstances where such harm was reasonably foreseeable.

Legal practitioners must now consider the broader implications of how dangerous conditions set by a defendant can influence subsequent events leading to harm. This may lead to more robust evidence collection regarding the initial conditions and their potential to foreseeably lead to accidents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Causation

Causation in criminal law refers to the relationship between the defendant's actions and the harm that results. It requires establishing that the defendant's conduct was a significant factor in bringing about the outcome.

Dangerousness

Dangerousness pertains to whether the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person, thereby posing a risk to others.

New and Intervening Act

A new and intervening act is an event that occurs after the defendant's actions and independently contributes to the harm. Such acts can potentially break the chain of causation if they are sufficiently independent and unforeseeable.

Reasonable Foreseeability

Reasonable foreseeability assesses whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position could predict that their actions might lead to the harm in question, without requiring the defendant to foresee the exact manner in which the harm would occur.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in A, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 407 reaffirms and refines the legal standards surrounding causation in dangerous driving cases. By expanding the interpretation of causation beyond the specific foreseeability of intervening acts, the judgment ensures that defendants remain accountable for creating hazardous conditions that can foreseeably lead to harm. This case serves as a critical reference point for future prosecutions, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment of how a defendant's actions set the stage for potential accidents, regardless of subsequent unforeseen events.

Ultimately, this judgment balances the principles of fairness and accountability, ensuring that individuals who engage in dangerous driving cannot easily evade responsibility through the occurrence of unforeseeable events. It strengthens the legal framework that protects public safety on the roads, promoting a higher standard of driving conduct.