R v Marchant & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 November 2001 at the Crown Court at The City, the Plaintiff was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, and the Defendant was convicted of procuring that offence on a separate count. Both were sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for 18 months, had their licences endorsed, and were fined. The Defendants appealed against conviction, with leave granted by a single judge, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court.

The Defendant is a farmer who employed the Plaintiff as a tractor driver. The Plaintiff operated a Matbro TR250 loading machine with a grab attachment used for lifting large bales, pulling a trailer loaded with such bales on a public highway. The vehicle was sold by a reputable dealer and inspected annually, and both Defendants had received certified training in its use.

On 15 August 2000, while driving the vehicle on a rural B class road subject to a 60 mph speed limit, the Plaintiff was unable to enter a farm entrance due to a van blocking the way and stopped within the road confines. A motorcycle driven by a third party approached from the opposite direction at high speed, collided with the grab's protruding tynes, and the motorcyclist suffered fatal injuries.

The prosecution proceeded on two bases: that the vehicle was in a dangerous position by protruding into the opposite lane, and that the vehicle was in a dangerous condition due to its design, specifically the exposed tynes without guards. The Defendants argued, among other points, that the vehicle was authorised by the Secretary of State for use on public roads and thus exempt from certain statutory offences related to vehicle condition.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the exemption granted by the Secretary of State for use of the agricultural vehicle on public roads under the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979 extends to offences under Sections 1 and 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving and dangerous driving).
2. Whether it was appropriate to prosecute the Defendants on the basis that the vehicle's inherent design constituted a dangerous condition under Section 2A(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
3. Whether the Learned Recorder erred in leaving the "dangerous condition" case to the jury.
4. Whether the Defendants' rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights were breached by the prosecution and trial process.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The authorisation by the Secretary of State exempting the vehicle from prosecution under Section 40A should also apply to Sections 1 and 2, preventing prosecution for dangerous driving based solely on the vehicle's inherent design.
• It was unfair and an abuse of process to prosecute the Defendants on the dangerous condition basis when the vehicle was used in its authorised condition without any alterations or lack of maintenance attributable to them.
• The Learned Recorder failed to direct the jury properly that if the vehicle was stationary and wholly on the correct side of the road, it could not have caused death within the meaning of Section 1.
• The prosecution constituted breaches of the Defendants' Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (no punishment without law) rights.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution case was based on two theories: the vehicle's dangerous position and the dangerous condition caused by the exposed tynes.
• Section 40A applies to latent defects and is disapplied for authorised vehicles, but Sections 1 and 2 require the danger to be obvious to a competent and careful driver and thus prosecution remains appropriate where the danger is patent.
• Section 44's exemption of authorised vehicles from Sections 40A to 42 does not extend to Sections 1 and 2.
• The phrase "current state" in Section 2A(2) implies a state different from the original manufactured condition, which allowed the dangerous condition case to proceed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Wood v Milne [1987] The Times 27 March	Interpretation of Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1978, Regulation 97; established that "condition" includes inherent or manufactured condition and does not require proof of lack of maintenance.	The court distinguished the statutory language in the Road Traffic Act 1988, noting that "condition" in Section 40A differs from "current state" in Section 2A(2), and that Wood v Milne did not consider the effect of Secretary of State's authorisation.
R v Strong [1995] Crim LR 428	Clarification that "obvious to a competent and careful driver" refers to a dangerous state "seen or realised at first glance" under Section 2A(2).	The court applied this interpretation in considering whether the jury had sufficient guidance on the obviousness of danger from the vehicle's state.
Morris [2002] EWCA Crim 137	Judicial guidance that judges should generally avoid defining the word "obvious" in dangerous driving cases.	The court noted this guidance but considered that some reference to the vehicle's authorised inherent condition was appropriate to assist the jury.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework, emphasising the distinction between "condition" in Section 40A and "current state" in Section 2A(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The exemption from Section 40A for authorised agricultural vehicles does not extend to Sections 1 and 2, which require that the dangerous driving or dangerous condition be obvious to a competent and careful driver.

The court concluded that the term "current state" implies a state differing from the original or manufactured condition, thereby excluding prosecution based solely on the inherent design of an authorised vehicle. The prosecution's "dangerous condition" case, which relied on the vehicle's inherent design rather than any alteration or lack of maintenance, should not have been left to the jury.

However, the "dangerous position" case, alleging the driver manoeuvred the vehicle in a manner creating additional danger, could properly be considered. The court also noted that the jury should have been given some guidance regarding the vehicle's authorised inherent condition to properly assess whether the state was "obviously dangerous."

Having found the "dangerous condition" charge inappropriate on these facts, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions, emphasizing that prosecution for inherent design flaws of authorised vehicles should be directed at manufacturers rather than blameless users.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is that the appeals are allowed and the convictions are quashed.

The direct effect is that the Defendants' convictions for causing death by dangerous driving and procuring that offence, based on the "dangerous condition" case, were overturned. The court clarified that while authorised agricultural vehicles are exempt from certain statutory offences related to vehicle condition, this exemption does not extend to dangerous driving offences under Sections 1 and 2 unless the danger is patent and caused by the driver's conduct rather than the vehicle's inherent design. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory interpretation and principles to the facts of this case.