The law and bad driving

The recent death of a father and his young son, when a motor vehicle travelling in the opposite lane of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway crossed the median and landed on the hood of their vehicle, serve to highlight how easily innocent citizens can lose their lives on our nation’s roads. Over the years our courts have not sentenced many people to jail terms for the offence of motor manslaughter. The simple reason for this is that for a jury to find a person guilty of motor manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove that the culpable driver was driving in a grossly negligent manner at the time of the accident. Gross negligence is not easy for the prosecution to prove.

The fact that not many people have been sentenced to a prison term for offences involving road use may serve in part to explain why we in this country appear to have what could be described as a culture of “bad driving.” On an average day on our roads one would not have to look very far to notice the various forms of road traffic offences that could pose a danger to the life of road users. These range from simply exceeding the speed limit to dangerous overtaking, driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, driving while using a mobile phone, taking one’s eyes away from the road to speak to passengers in the back seat and driving poorly maintained vehicles just to name a few. The motoring public needs to be aware that a relatively recent amendment to the law and recent case law makes it much easier for persons to be sent to jail for any death that results from dangerous driving.

As of the year 2000 by virtue of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Act any person who causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle dangerously on the road, commits an offence and is  liable on conviction to imprisonment for a maximum of fifteen years. The prosecution no longer has to prove that the driver in question was driving in a manner which was grossly negligent but simply that he was driving in a dangerous manner. In April of 2003 the English Court of Appeal (in R vs. Cooksley and Others) made certain pronouncements in relation to the sentencing of persons found guilty of dangerous driving which would no doubt weigh heavily with our courts and serve as guidance to the local courts as to how such offenders should be dealt with. The Court said that in cases of causing death by dangerous driving a prison term should normally be imposed no matter what the mitigating circumstances because of the need to deter other drivers from driving dangerously and because of the gravity of the offence.

The Court also said that in assessing the seriousness of the offence, some aggravating factors that would serve to increase the term of imprisonment that should be imposed are (1) the consumption of drugs, (2) greatly excessive speed, racing, competitive driving or showing off, (3) disregard of warning from fellow drivers, (4) a prolonged, persistent, deliberate course of bad driving, (5) aggressive driving, (6) driving while the driver’s attention was distracted e.g. by reading or using a mobile phone, (7) driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition, (8) driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest, (9) driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially when motivated by commercial concerns, (10) where more than one person was killed as a result of the offence, multiple deaths being a more aggravating feature, and (11) irresponsible behaviour at the time of the offence, e.g. dishonestly claiming one of the victims was responsible for the crash.
 
The above list is by no means exhaustive. However the important and frightening thing is that on any given day if one were to simply take a drive from Port-of-Spain to San Fernando one would would see drivers engaging in just about every type of the above misconduct. It is a fact that many of the commercial vehicles being driven on our roads are defective and are mobile death traps. Company directors should know that should they knowingly allow their company’s vehicles to be driven on the roads in a defective condition and should the condition of the vehicle be the cause of an accident in which a life is lost they could very well be convicted of the offence of counselling and procuring the dangerous driving that caused the death. In one case in England (Millar vs.  R) a building contractor had knowledge that his company’s vehicle was being driven on the road with defective brakes.

The vehicle was involved in a fatal collision where the condition of the brakes was found to be the cause of the accident. The Company was fined and the Contractor was imprisoned for nine months. This possible offence ought to weigh heavy on the minds of companies whose vehicles are driven on the roads without proper rear mud flaps to prevent stones from the road from being pitched at the windscreens of vehicles being driven to the rear of such commercial vehicles. Such lack of proper mud flaps on commercial vehicles could very well be viewed as a defect which poses a potentially grave danger to other road users seeking to avoid stones from coming into contact with their windsceens. The authorities in our country would be well advised to further educate the public of their potential liability under the law as amended and further ensure proper investigation and full prosecution of all concerned especially when liability extends to reckless company personnel. Of greater importance is for us members of the public to get into our heads that any form of dangerous driving is a criminal act with potentially severe consequences not only for the deceased and his family but also for our own family, should we be one day ordered by a judge to spend some time at one of our fine penal establishments.

Larry Lalla
Attorney-at-Law
A publication of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago