[Drivingforfun]

Just a random question but I was reading another thread here, wondering what was the point of punishing someone who had no intent

I was always told intent was a big part of whether a crime is actually committed; however it's also well known that ignorance is not usually a defence for breaking the law

I may be overcomplicating things but these two positions seem to contradict - if you were to break things down, ignorance tends to be the precise reason that no malice is intended; or, in reverse, surely you need to be aware of the law in order to intend to break it

Which one supersedes?? Does it depend on the particular case at hand?

[Mark07]

I'm sure there are members of this community who are more knowledgeable than I, but i think the short answer is 'it depends'.

Some offences will be based on strict liability. Speeding as an example - having no intention to exceed the limit isn't a defence.

There are also legal definitions for 'recklessness' and 'reasonable person' which can result in a person being charged for more serious crimes even when intent doesn't exist.

For example; If you were to drive at excessive speed (but had no intent to injure anyone) in a built up area and subsequently caused someone's death, you could be charged with constructive manslaughter as it's reasonable a pedestrian would step into the street.

If you drove sensibly, and the same thing occurred, it'd be more likely to be judged as an accident, or a lesser offence (obviously that all depends on an array of variables.)

Or at least, I think that's broadly right. Hopefully someone can correct me, or provide a more detailed answer. :)

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Mark07

I'm sure there are members of this community who are more knowledgeable than I, but i think the short answer is 'it depends'.

Some offences will be based on strict liability. Speeding as an example - having no intention to exceed the limit isn't a defence.

There are also legal definitions for 'recklessness' and 'reasonable person' which can result in a person being charged for more serious crimes even when intent doesn't exist.

For example; If you were to drive at excessive speed (but had no intent to injure anyone) in a built up area and subsequently caused someone's death, you could be charged with constructive manslaughter as it's reasonable a pedestrian would step into the street.

If you drove sensibly, and the same thing occurred, it'd be more likely to be judged as an accident, or a lesser offence (obviously that all depends on an array of variables.)

Or at least, I think that's broadly right. Hopefully someone can correct me, or provide a more detailed answer. :)

You are indeed broadly right. Many (probably most) motoring offences are "strict liability" or "absolute" offences - I can't remember the difference.

In your example of speeding causing death, the likely charge would be causing death by dangerous (or careless) driving, rather than manslaughter.

[Mark07]

My law teacher would be proud 😀
@Beelzebub Thanks for filling in the gaps in my memory.

[TC1474]

With traffic law we have a situation in this country where traffic law (non criminal) can overlap into traffic law (criminal) and the range of offences that fall in between are wide and varied.

So, a quick history lesson.

Back in the day when I first entered policing, section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 was causing death by reckless driving with section 2 being reckless driving.

Very few drivers were ever convicted under this section because you had to prove a state of mind. So I would interview a driver I had arrested after a fatal crash any my question would be along the lines of

"Were you aware of the possible consequences of your actions as you carried them out?" As soon as the defendant replied "No" your section 1 or section 2 went straight out of the window and you were only left with the lesser offence of a section 3, careless driving which is sub divided into Driving without due care and attention, and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, hence the reasoning behind a lot of plea bargaining.

But in 1988 with the introduction of the current road traffic act, Reckless was changed to dangerous and suddenly things changed because all we have to do to get a conviction for death by dangerous or dangerous driving is show that the standard of driving fell well below the standard expected of a reasonably safe and competent driver. The burden of proof was easier to establish and we were no longer reliant on proving a state of mind.

But we do then get offences which are strict liability as mentioned
Speeding
Tailgating.
Centre lane hogging (careless driving)
Failing to conform to an obligatory traffic sign such as a stop or give way, and so the list goes on.

Most construction and use offences are strict liability (although there a few statutory defences such as the ABS failing during a journey) but driving with a defect or failing to maintain are again strict liability hence the need to keep the vehicle up to standard.

But then we have the other side of the coin where unlike say the Theft act of 1968 where very little has been changed over the years, traffic law changes almost daily and so it is sometimes difficult for the average motorists to keep on top of things.

This is where a bit of discretion by the Police/prosecution can be allowed because clearly nobody can know every traffic law (I had to do a 12 week traffic law course which was longer than my basic training, and if any one of us got less than 80% on our weekly exam, the following day we would be back walking the streets with a tall hat on our heads)

But even with the ever changing law, the average driver knows the difference between driving reasonably and (excuse my language) taking the p*ss, and if he drives in a reasonable manner then he/she will be left alone.

But in the same vein traffic police these days do not get the training that I was fortunate to receive back in the day (budget cuts) and so many of them do not know the rules that govern the road, but we do get a lot of bar room lawyers who will argue black is white that they are right and everyone else is wrong mainly caused by the internet.

The other problem is that there are so many laws and regulations.
The Road Traffic Act
Construction and Use Regulations
Road vehicle lighting regs
Driving licence regs.
HGV/PCV regs
Road Traffic Regulations Act.
Motorway Regulations
Highways Act
To name but a few....

Give you another example......

A year or so ago I had gone down to Gloucester where I was guest speaker with an advanced driving group.

I departed the venue after 11pm and was winding my way home up the M4 when I had a car sat in lane 2 of a near empty Motorway doing about 55 and another vehicle in lane 3 doing around 60.

I went past on the nearside of the lane 2 hogger at 70 and about half a mile up the road on go a set of blue lights and I am pulled in by the local motorway traffic cop.

He got out of his vehicle and was ranting and raving and telling me how he was going to throw the book at me for undertaking, so when I asked him what specific offence he was going to report me for he suddenly looked puzzled.

I asked him to book me as I was going to have great joy in going to court with a not guilty plea and then claiming costs against Police because he could not establish I had committed any offence.

His answer was undertaking was an offence, so I asked him to quote act and section and then pointed out the specific offence was removed in the 72 road traffic act, and that only left careless and then he would have to prove that my driving fell below the standard of a reasonably safe and competent driver and the simple act of undertaking was insufficient especially when the driver in the middle lane was guilty of a strict liability offence.

He was working on the Highway Code rule which states should not, it does not say MUST not. Had it been a must not it would have been qualified by the appropriate act and section, but he did not know that.

Anyway, long story short, he asked me how I knew all this and then saw my IPA (International Police Association ) badge in the windscreen and asked if I happened to be traffic or road policing by any chance? He was not a happy chappy when we parted, and I would have hated to have been in the shoes of the first driver he stopped after stopping me.

But therein lies much of the problem. Laws change regularly, traffic police are not experienced or qualified as they should be, but the public are non the wiser and I have often wondered how many have been prosecuted when it did not even warrant a booking in the first place.

Sorry I have rambled on, but it is not a question that can be given a simple answer as there are so many issues.

But.....As one of my old law instructors once said, "The best guide is, if it feels wrong, it usually is wrong" hence the reason who some drivers are reported for any offences that may be disclosed which is cop speak for "I need to go away and think about this and maybe look it up.

[NMNeil]

I'd imagine it's the same as here in the US that the courts will rely heavily on precedent if any such questions arise.
https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php

[Rolebama]

I still do a lot of miles on motorways, and I reckon about 99% is done in Lane 1. As far as I am concerned and aware, all lanes have a 70mph limit, so passing other traffic in other lanes is perfectly OK, and always has been.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I still do a lot of miles on motorways, and I reckon about 99% is done in Lane 1. As far as I am concerned and aware, all lanes have a 70mph limit, so passing other traffic in other lanes is perfectly OK, and always has been.

Well, the Highway Code disagrees, and always has done.

[Rolebama]

Beelzebub: I have looked on Highway Code website, but can't find the relevant section. There is plenty about not overtaking on the left, which, I agree, is not good, but I am talking about passing.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Beelzebub: I have looked on Highway Code website, but can't find the relevant section. There is plenty about not overtaking on the left, which, I agree, is not good, but I am talking about passing.

There is no difference.

"Overtake = catch up with and pass while travelling in the same direction."

[Rolebama]

Beelzebub: Are you advocating that we should not pass at dedicated right-turn lane junctions, or on a roundabout approach on a dual carriageway, or on the M25 when the nearside lane becomes the slip-road, or M40 where it splits for the M42, or M3 where it splits for A303? (There are more.) There is no difference.

[TC1474]

Do not confuse the Highway Code with law, and when it comes to undertaking I covered this a few days ago in a previous thread, but to recap -

With regards to passing on the left/Undertaking, the Highway Code says should not it does not say Must not. Where it says must not it will be backed up by an act and section, where it says should not, it is merely advice.

In the case of passing on the left as I have already mentioned, the specific offence was removed with the introduction of the 1972 Road Traffic act and a case of careless driving has to be proved and a simple act of undertaking on a Motorway when lane 2 is being hogged is insufficient.

The same applies with junctions as already mentioned. If undertaking was illegal, it would cause havoc on the motorways as traffic would be unable to filter when exiting, and it would also prohibit vehicles passing down the nearside when someone was waiting to turn right.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with undertaking providing some basic rules are complied with and if a crash occurs whilst undertaking, just because a vehicle is undertaking does not mean that the driver will be held at fault, as the courts have made it quite clear that the driver returning to the nearside or left hand lane has a statutory duty of care to ensure it is safe to return to that lane, and I can quote you a dozen or more cases where the undertaking driver has been exonerated in such crashes.

So undertaking/passing on the left is perfectly legal, providing it is done safely and with due caution.