The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

OCTOBER 1996

Consideration of "AH the Circumstances"

o t h e r w i se q u i et a n d u n c r o w d ed p l a ce h a s a lot of p e o p le a r o u nd ( eg a fair d a y o r n e ar a s c h o ol at e n d - o f - c l a ss t i me ), this w o u l d o b v i o u s ly p l a ce a h i g h er t h r e s h o ld of c a re o n a d r i v e r. (iii) The volume of traffic , whether u s u a l ly f o u n d at the p l a ce ( d ay a n d / or n i g h t) o r t h e re f o r p a r t i c u l ar r e a s o ns at the r e l e v a nt t i me, c an b e r e l e v a nt as the m o r e traffic t h e re is t he m o r e a s s u m ed f o r e s e e a b le risk of e r r or a nd r e s u l t i ng d a n g e r. (e) Driving Dangerous to the Public: T h a t t he d r i v i ng of t he d e f e n d a nt is " d a n g e r o us to t he p u b l i c" is t he k e r n el of t he S e c t i on 5 3 o f f e n c e a n d a c l e ar j u d i c i al e x p o s i t i on of w h a t that m e a n s w a s g i v en b y t he late P r e s i d e nt of t he C i r c u it C o u r t, B a r ra O ' B r i a in J: "Driving in a manner (including speed) which a reasonable prudent man having knowledge of all the circumstances proved in court would clearly recognise as involving an unjustifiably definite risk of harm to the public" (People.v.Quinlan 1962 CCf. T h i s d i c t um e m p h a s i s es t he o b j e c t i ve s t a n d a rd of t he r e a s o n a b le p r u d e nt d r i v er in t he p a r t i c u l ar c i r c u m s t a n c es a n d h is r e a l i s a t i on of a d e f i n i te risk. H o w e v e r , t h e re m u s t a l so b e a s u b j e c t i ve e l e m e n t (i.e. mens rea) of a d v e r t a n ce ( i n t e n t i o n) o r i n a d v e r t e n ce ( r e c k l e s s n e ss o r c r i m i n al n e g l i g e n c e) p r o v e d a g a i n st t he d e f e n d a n t. T h e m o s t f o r m a l p r e s e n t a t i on of t he 'mens rea ' f o r d a n g e r o us d r i v i n g/ i n v o l u n t a ry m a n s l a u g h t er c a u s i ng d e a t h by d r i v i ng is still e x p o u n d ed in A.G. v. Dunleavy [(1948)] I.R. 95: 82 I L T R 7 0 ). If t he c o u rt t a k es a less s e r i o us v i ew of t h e v a r i o us i n g r e d i e n ts p r o v ed a g a i n st t he d e f e n d a n t, t he j u d g e h a s t he right u n d e r t he 1961 A ct to r e d u ce t he c h a r ge f r o m o n e of d a n g e r o us d r i v i ng to o n e of c a r e l e ss d r i v i n g, an o p t i on w h i ch e n a b l es t he d e f e n ce solicitor in t he final a n a l y s i s, w h e r e an o u t r i g ht d i s m i s s al c a n n o t r e a s o n a b ly b e s o u g h t, to p l e ad in m i t i g a t i on of t he c h a r ge as well as t he p e n a l ty w h e r e t h e re is a n y d o u bt a b o u t t he d e f e n d a n t 's d r i v i ng h a v i ng b e e n p r o v ed as b e i ng " d a n g e r o us to t he p u b l i c ".

so w h at is set o ut in (a) a b o ve r e l a t i ng to a l c o h ol w o u l d e q u a l ly a p p ly to d r u gs e x c e pt that t h e re are n o s p e c i f ic scientifically a n a l y s ed u p p e r limits of d r u g c o n s u m p t i o n. H o w e v e r, if the d r u g level in t he d e f e n d a n t 's s y s t em h a s b e en scientifically m e a s u r ed f r o m b l o od o r u r i ne s a m p l e s, p r e s u m a b l y, by a n a l o gy w i th t he p r o v i ng of t he t a k i ng of a p r o h i b i t ed d r u g u n d er t he M i s u s e of D r u g s A c t, m e d i c al e v i d e n ce c an b e f o r t h c o m i ng as to t he d e g r ee of d r i v i ng i n c a p a c i ty a s s u m e d to arise f r o m the s o identified d r u g level. (c) Particular Condition of the Person : D u r e s s, s u d d en i n c a p a c i ty or m i s t a ke c r e a t i ng an e m e r g e n cy situation m a y b e c i r c u m s t a n c es to b e c o n s i d e r e d. In t he Au s t r a l i an c a s e of R-v-Coventry ( 1 9 8 3) 5 9 C L R 6 3 3 it w a s h e ld that a s u d d e n, e v e n t h o u gh m i s t a k e n, a c t i on in a critical situation m a y n ot in all t he c i r c u m s t a n c es of t he c a s e c o n s t i t u te d a n g e r o us d r i v i n g. o c c u r r e n ce of a s u d d en m e c h a n i c al d e f e ct c an b e a g o o d d e f e n ce as in t he E n g l i sh c a s e R-v-Spurge [ 1 9 6 1] 2 Q B 2 0 5 w h e r e it w a s h e ld that a s u d d en e m e r g e n cy c a u s ed b y an u n f o r e s e e a b le d e f e ct in a v e h i c le m i g h t a f f o rd a g o o d d e f e n ce to a c h a r ge of d a n g e r o us d r i v i n g; a nd that, o n c e t he u n f o r e s e e a b le d e f e ct is p r o v ed by t he d e f e n c e, t he o n u s of p r o of of d a n g e r o us d r i v i ng in the r e s u l t i ng c i r c u m s t a n c es rests o n t he p r o s e c u t i o n. Disqualification A s a result of t he p a s s i ng of t he 1994 a nd 1 9 95 R o a d T r a f f ic A c t s, a c o n v i c t i on f o r d a n g e r o us d r i v i n g, w h e t h er o n i n d i c t m e nt or o n s u mm a r y c o n v i c t i o n, r e s u l ts in an a u t o m a t ic o n e y e ar d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n. H o w e v e r, in r e l a t i on to a s u mm a r y trial, w h e r e t he c o u rt is satisfied that a " s p e c i al r e a s o n" ( w h i ch is s p e c i f i ed w h e n m a k i n g its o r d e r) h a s b e e n p r o v ed by t he c o n v i c t ed d r i v er to e x i st in h is p a r t i c u l ar c a s e, the c o u rt m a y e i t h er d e c l i ne to m a k e a c o n s e q u e n t i al d i s q u a l i f i c a t i on o r m a y s p e c i fy a p e r i od of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i on of less t h an o n e y e a r. (d) Sudden mechanical defect: The

T h e text of S e c t i on 5 3 a l so e n v i s a g es the e x i s t e n ce of o t h er c i r c u m s t a n c es w h i c h "may b e t a k en into a c c o u nt by the c o u r t. It is a p p r o p r i a te to c o n s i d er " c i r c u m s t a n c e s" w h i c h, if p r e s e n t, c o u ld exacerbate t he d e f e n d a n t 's guilt of d a n g e r o us d r i v i ng (as w e ll as g i ve rise to c o n v i c t i o ns f o r o t h er s t a t u t o ry o f f e n c e s ), or w h i c h, if p r e s e n t, c o u ld mitigate t he d e f e n d a n t 's guilt of d a n g e r o us d r i v i n g, i n c l u d i ng t he f o l l o w i n g: (a) Presence of Alcohol: The old court d e c i s i o ns o n this issue a re p r e- m e d i c al b u r e au b l o o d / u r i ne a n a l y s es w i th s p e c i f i ed limits, b ut t h ey are still valid in h o l d i ng that a " s i g n i f i c a nt q u a n t i t y" of a l c o h ol m u s t b e i n v o l v e d. H o w e v e r, in r e l a t i on to i n t o x i c a n ts a n d d a n g e r o us d r i v i n g, t w o o t h er p r o v i s i o ns of t he 1968 a nd 1 9 94 A c t s s h o u ld b e n o t e d: (i) the e x t e n s i on of t he p o w e r of p o l i ce arrest to all c a s es of d a n g e r o us d r i v i ng ( S e c t i on 5 3 ( 6) as a m e n d e d by S e c t i on 51 of t he 1968 Ac t ); (ii) t he o b l i g a t i on of a d r i v er a r r e s t ed u n d er S e c t i on 5 3 ( 6) (as s o a m e n d e d) to p r o v i de a b i o l o g i c al specimen (i.e. b r e a t h,

b l o od or u r i n e) u n d er S e c t i on 3 of t he 1 9 94 A c t, p r o v i d ed the a r r e s t i ng g a r da is of o p i n i on that t he d r i v er c o n c e r n ed h as c o n s u m e d an i n t o x i c a n t; it n ot b e i ng n e c e s s a ry f o r the a r r e s t i ng g a r d a to f o r m an o p i n i on as to s o b r i e ty or c a p a c i t y. P r e s u m a b l y, if t he s p e c i m en is p o s i t i ve a n d o v e r t he 35 m e g / 1 0 0 ml ( b r e a t h ), 8 0 m g / 1 0 0 ml ( b l o o d) or 107 m g / 1 0 0ml ( u r i n e) limits, it w o u l d b e r e g a r d ed as " s i g n i f i c a n t ", as a l so m i g ht a l o w e r r e a d i ng u n d er t he s p e c i f i ed a p p r o p r i a te limit ( e v en

if n ot u n l a w f ul in itself) e s p e c i a l ly if t he " b a ck c a l c u l a t i o n" f a c t or is c o n s i d e r e d.

(b) Presence of Drugs : The 1994 Act n o w m a k e s d r u g s e q u i v a l e nt to a l c o h o l, b o th b e i ng " i n t o x i c a n t s ",

296