One for Nigel...

Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, creates offences of driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable consideration on a road or public place.

It states:
3 If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or public place, he is guilty of an offence.

IMPORTANT NOTE
This section creates two separate offences and it is bad for duplicity to charge them as alternatives.

There are a number of defences to this offence -
                              automatism
                              unconsciousness/sudden illness
                              duress - by threats & of necessity
                              sudden mechanical defect
                              assisting in arrest of offenders
                              authorised motoring event

As with causing death by dangerous driving under section 1, the term 'motor vehicle' has been replaced by 'mechanically propelled vehicle'. The offence can be committed in a 'PUBLIC PLACE' as well as on a road.

It is a question of fact as to whether driving is careless. The standard of care and attention is an objective one, in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver. A learner driver can quite easily be convicted of an offence. A driver who continues driving when overtaken by sleep is guilty of at least careless driving. Similarly, it is no defence that the driving was due to an error of judgement, although a driver may not be convicted if he was driving prudently and, confronted with a sudden emergency, made a wrong decision in the agony of the moment.

A defendant will have driven 'without due care and attention' if his driving has departed from the standard of care and skill that would, in the circumstances of the case, have been exercised by a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. The application of this standard enables this offence to cover cases ranging from momentary lapses in concentration or minor errors of judgement to deliberately bad or dangerous driving which, nevertheless, falls short of dangerous driving contrary to section 2.

It is a question of fact for the court to decide on the evidence as to whether or not driving is careless. The standard of care and attention is an objective one, in no way related to the degree of proficiency or degree of experience attained by the individual driver (see McCrone -v- Riding).

The standard is the same in the case of a driver who is a learner holding a provisional licence as it is in the case of the holder of a full driving licence.

Over the years case law has given various examples:

(1) A driver who continues to drive when tired and falls asleep is guilty. (see Kay v Butterworth 1945)
(2) The fact that a car leaves the road and mounts the pavement is primae facie evidence of an offence. (see Watts v Carter 1959)
(3) A driver must ensure that a person whose signal he is relying on is in a position to see the road properly. (Liddon v Stringer 1967)
(4) There is no special standard for police officers.
(5)  The principle of res ipsa loquitur (a thing speaks for itself) has no application in a criminal case such as driving without due care and attention, but the facts of a particular case might be such that, in the absence of some explanation, the only proper inference is that the driving was careless. In such a case there is a case to answer and the justices ought not to dismiss the summons on a submission at the close of the prosecution case. For example, a driver left the road and hit a telegraph pole. There was no reason why it should have happened, the car was in good order and the driver could not offer any explanation (Wright v. Wenlock [1971] RTR 228).

It might also be possible to draw adverse inferences (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) so long as there is some evidence available (a court cannot convict purely on the inferences alone). 

Charging standards relating to driving offences are agreed between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It is their intention to aid the selection of the most appropriate charge. Examined here is the guideline for the offence of careless driving contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This document considers the driving offence and examples of driving which constitute careless driving. It states:
The offence of careless driving is committed when the driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case.

The test is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when the manner of driving occurs as a result of an error of judgement or simply as a result of incompetence or inexperience.

Section 38(7) Road Traffic Act 1988 states that failure to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself bring about criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or dangerous driving.

CARELESS DRIVING

Prosecution for careless driving will be appropriate when the manner of driving demonstrates a serious miscalculation or a disregard for road safety, taking into account all the circumstances including road, traffic and / or weather conditions.

A charge of careless driving may be appropriate when an accident occurs and there is no evidence of mechanical defect, illness of the driver or other explanation to account for why the accident happened. In the absence of any such explanation the prosecution can provide evidence to the court about the accident on the basis that the defendant must have been driving below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver, since otherwise the accident would not have happened.

Examples of driving which may support an allegation of careless driving are:

1. Acts of driving caused by more than momentary inattention and where the safety of road users is affected, such as:
(i)   overtaking on the inside;
(ii)  driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;
(iii)  driving through a red light;
(iv) emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
(v)  turning into a minor road and colliding with a pedestrian.

2. Conduct causing the driver to be unresponsive in the event of an emergency on the road, for example:
(i)    using a hand held mobile telephone while the vehicle is moving, especially when at speed;
(ii)   tuning a car radio;
(iii)  reading a newspaper/map;
(iv)  selecting and lighting a cigarette/cigar/pipe;
(v)   talking to and looking at a passenger which causes the driver more than momentary inattention;
(vi)  leg and / or arm in plaster;
(vii) fatigue/nodding off.

These examples explain the driver's conduct/behaviour, but this is not relevant to the choice of charge. It is actually the acts of driving which determine whether the driver has fallen below (careless driving) or far below (dangerous driving) the objective standard required.

For example, they may explain why the driver passed through a red light, but it is necessary to go beyond this explanation and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge of careless or dangerous driving.

When this conduct occurs the appropriate charge will usually be careless driving (section 3). But police officers and prosecutors must always consider the manner of the driving in the context of the other facts in the case to decide the most appropriate way forward.