Careless Driving Charge Dismissed Before Trial

The terrifying thing about motor vehicle accidents is that they can occur in a split second and set off a chain of events that can change your entire life. My client had been driving for around 53 years and had never been involved in a road traffic accident. However, on a dark, wet night in 2021, this changed, and she found herself charged with careless driving and facing court proceedings. However, my team and I made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that they had no reasonable prospect of success. It subsequently agreed to discontinue the case before trial. This resulted in my client being spared of the stress and expense of a court appearance.

My client was a woman in her 70s with no previous criminal convictions. In December 2021, she attended her regular yoga class. She left to drive home at 7:15pm. My client was alone in the car and described the conditions as cold and wet, although the rain had ceased.

The accident happened on Bolton Road. My client stated that she always drives slowly down this particular road because she is aware of two rectangular indents in the carriageway. Previously, she had hit one of these indents and damaged a rear offside coil spring. This incident resulted in her taking considerable care when driving in this area.

There was poor street lighting and no central white line. She spotted a dark coloured car door opening on her nearside. She swerved immediately to avoid colliding with the car door. However, her wing mirror struck the door, and the impact dislodged it. She pulled over and parked around six yards from the incident.

She retrieved her wing mirror and realised that the car was a taxi. An elderly gentleman was lying on the side of the road with the taxi driver assisting him. My client remained at the scene, assisting with the injured man’s care. The police and paramedics arrived. My client was breathalysed, and the results showed zero alcohol in her breath. She gave a statement to a police officer and returned home shaken and concerned for the welfare of the elderly gentleman.

In May 2022, my client received Court papers charging her with driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road/public place without due care and attention, contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

There were several witnesses to the incident. One was a driver who saw the elderly gentleman being struck by my client’s vehicle. He maintained that my client was driving at around 35 mph. Although the case was dismissed before it reached Court, I had prepared my cross-examination and it robustly queried how the witness could possibly have estimated the speed of my client’s car given the poor lighting and weather conditions.

The taxi driver also provided a witness statement. He said that he had deliberately parked his car with the driver’s side nearest the kerb so his passenger could exit the vehicle directly onto the pavement. Although the passenger was sitting in the rear of the car on the passenger side, all he had to do was shuffle over to exit safely. Instead, he chose to get out of the car onto the road, which the taxi driver confirmed was busy in both directions.

In my cross-examination notes, I concluded that had my client been driving at 35 mph, the elderly and frail man would not have survived the impact. Instead, all he received was a graze to the top of his head. This injury could have occurred if he banged his head on the taxi door or the road whilst falling out of the taxi. The bruising to the side of his body and calf muscle was also consistent with a minor incident and probably happened due to the gentleman losing his balance. Both the gentleman and the taxi driver witness confirmed that the former suffered from poor mobility.

Several factors made it clear that that there was no reasonable prospect of success with the prosecution. No one heard any screeching of tyres (something you would expect if a vehicle was travelling at over 30 mph and about to hit another person). The taxi driver should not have stopped where he did and simply assumed his passenger would exit the vehicle onto the pavement: the driver should have warned or assisted him, especially as he was aware of the gentleman’s poor mobility. My client’s evidence was detailed, logical, and demonstrated a ring of truth. Other witnesses, notably the driver who stated my client was driving at around 35 mph, were wholly inconsistent and unreliable. A lay witness is not competent to give evidence as to the speed of a vehicle. They can guess, but no reliability can be attached to any guess. For these reasons, the CPS decided to drop the case.

To find out how I can assist you if you have been charged with careless driving, please call me on 0151 601 3743 for a no obligation free quote.

Careless Driving Charge Dismissed Before Trial

The facts of the case

My approach to creating a defence

In Summary