Brief Facts of the Case:

PC Milton was at the time of the alleged offences a Police Officer serving with the West Mercia Constabulary.  He is a Grade 1 advanced police driver.

On the night of the 4th/5th December 2003 PC Milton drove an unmarked Vauxhall Vectra police vehicle during the early hours of the morning on the M54 at speeds of 148mph; on the A5 trunk road at an average speed of 114mph; and in a built up area at speeds of in excess of 60mph.  His reason for driving at these speeds were to familiarise himself with the vehicle, in accordance with his training as an advanced police driver.

All speeds were so far above the speed limits that both the speeding offences and dangerous driving charges were proceeded with.

Brief History of the Case:

The speeding offences were successfully defended on the basis that the police vehicle was being driven for police purposes.  That then left the charge of dangerous driving to be considered.  Originally, PC Milton was acquitted of dangerous driving, but the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the Court’s decision.

The DPP’s Appeal was successful and the case was re-heard in the Magistrates’ Court.  Following that hearing, PC Milton was convicted of dangerous driving.

Following the re-hearing, PC Milton appealed to the High Court for a decision to be made on whether his driving ability could be taken into account when the Court decided whether or not his driving was dangerous.

The High Court’s Decision:

The key part of the Law that the Court considered is:

‘regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which [the driver] could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.’

The question that was posed was:  Is someone’s superior driving skills a circumstance within their knowledge which should be taken into account?  The position of the Law previously was a definite ‘No’.  All the Court would look at is what the normal careful and prudent driver would think of the standard of driving.

The Court decided in this case that the fact that PC Milton was a Grade 1 advanced police driver was a circumstance that could be taken into account.  Effectively, the Court is saying is that some driving manoeuvres/conduct may be considered dangerous for a driver of ‘normal’ skill, but that it may not be the case for a driver of extreme ‘special skill’.  The Court did make a point of stating that this decision is not limited to police officers.  A civilian with equivalent high levels of driver training would be entitled to bring to the Court’s attention evidence of their superior driving skills if charged with dangerous driving.  It is then for the Court to decide whether that has any bearing on the individual facts of the case.

The change to the law would require new legislation to be introduced and would probably not come into effect until after the general election. The change will follow the introduction of new offences, causing death by careless, disqualified or uninsured driving.

Common scenarios where driving may be dangerous include:

• Being distracted by something, e.g. changing the radio, lighting a cigarette or looking at a map
• Dangerous overtaking manoeuvre
• Driving under the influence of drink or drugs
• Ignoring street signage or traffic signals
• Not being in a fit condition to drive, perhaps when sleepy
• Under the knowledge that the vehicle has an unsafe load or mechanical defect
• Aggressive driving or racing

The incident took place north of Luton, near Barton-le-Clay. Our client, AM, was riding a motorcycle following two cars. All vehicles were proceeding south on the Luton Road towards the A6.

As AM proceeded, legally overtaking the cars, the car driver at the head of the line, suddenly and without warning, turned across AM’s path to the right. This caused a collision between the vehicles and the Police attended shortly afterwards. After taking statements and investigating the case, the Police and CPS chose to proceed against AM for careless driving.

AM then approached us for advice with respect to defending the charge.

For a Court to have convicted AM of Careless Driving, the Magistrates would have needed to be convinced that the standard of his riding fell below that expected of a reasonable prudent and careful rider. It was our advice to AM from the outset that in these circumstances we believed that he had not done anything that amounted to careless driving. Further, we were of the opinion that the sole responsibility for the collision rested with the car driver as they had carelessly undertaken a manoeuvre that would never have normally been contemplated considering the road layout. Where the car driver was attempting to turn right, is clearly from the road design, only intended to be used by vehicles coming from the opposite direction.

It was always Motor Defence Solicitors’ position that if the car driver was to complete this unusual manoeuvre, he needed to do so with painstaking care for other road users as it was so unexpected.

Importantly, Motor Defence Solicitors established at Court that the driver of the vehicle and his passenger remembered as they approached the junction in question that they had left a birthday card at home. Therefore, we were able to show the reason for the ‘short cut’ being taken. On top of this, Motor Defence Solicitors proved two key points at Court:

1.the car driver did not use his indicator; and
2.the car driver did not look in his mirrors before undertaking this manoeuvre.

The following photographs were used at Court to show what would have been seen had the car driver followed the proper observation procedures:

 

The Court therefore found that there was no evidence to support that AM had driven carelessly and acquitted him of the offence. The Court also made an order that AM’s legal costs be paid out of public funds. Our sister firm, White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors, is pursuing the car driver for AM’s personal injury claim.

This is a case where, on the face of it, you could easily see it as a reckless overtake by a biker. However, this should highlight the importance of ‘digging’ into the details further, as all may not be quite as straightforward as the authorities would have you believe.

If you face a charge of Careless Driving, please contact us for specialist advice as we may be able to help you avoid a conviction. Whilst our services are only available on a private fee paying basis, you should always enquire with your Vehicle Insurer for offences of Careless Driving, Dangerous Driving and Causing Death by Dangerous Driving as to whether they would fund your defence.

We were shifting on a national speed limit single carriageway. There were a couple of non-IAM overtakes, a few of the lads popped wheelies along the way, and I have to admit all of us crossed double white lines. So far, so typical for a Sunday afternoon ride.

Nine miles later, we were stopped by the police, before the GS came around the corner at a right old lick. It turns out that it was a Police camera bike.

The officer advised us we’d be prosecuted with dangerous driving. He showed us the video from his bike, but all he’d caught was himself averaging 80mph and over 110mph; none of us riding at all.

The only time you see us is when he starts the bike camera up and the last two riders are in front of the stationary bike. Can we be nicked for dangerous driving if he hasn’t actually seen our riding?

Name and address withheld

No. If they work out the average speed to be double the speed limit, there is a presumption your driving is dangerous, but you can’t prosecute on presumption alone. The officer never moved at twice the speed limit, let alone with you in shot.

You may be prosecuted for speeding though, because the officer can say where he first saw you, and work out time over distance to where you were stopped and therefore, your average speed.

The two lads caught on camera have the biggest problem, because it can be proved where they started and finished, and the time in between. If the police rider averaged about 80, then the speed of your group can’t accurately be proved to be more than this, and your time over distance can only be proved to show a faster speed, but not how much faster.

Do not plead guilty to dangerous driving: you will lose all of your driving licence, including entitlement to drive car, bike, HGV or bus, and you will have to take a compulsory extended re-test.

Mind you, if you had been on camera, your riding would be dangerous and you would be found guilty of dangerous driving if the wheelie poppers and white line bandits could be identified. 

You’re probably going to get prosecuted for speeding, but you all need to keep your mouths firmly shut, and let the police rider prove your speed and that all of you were the same riders he saw when he gave chase. 

A word to the wise: Power Ranger bright leathers may look cool, but they are easy to identify. Plain black makes you a lot harder to pick out! 

Andrew Dalton
Fast Bikes