Driving without due care and attention

In order to prove the offence of driving without due care and attention (or careless driving as it is commonly known) the prosecution is required to establish that the defendant's driving fell "below the standard of the careful and competent driver". In order to prove driving without reasonable consideration, it must be established that other persons have been inconvenienced in some way by the defendant's driving.

Examples of Careless Driving:

• Overtaking other vehicles on the inside lane
• Contravening a traffic signal where the offence has been more than a momentary lapse of concentration
• "tailgating" other vehicles on the motorway

Where an accident has taken place the prosecution may suggest that the facts speak for themselves to prove the offence of careless driving. If the facts are such that in the absence of any explanation put forward by the defendant, or that explanation is objectively inadequate, a conviction will normally follow. In this situation, if an explanation is put forward by the defendant which suggests that the accident was not his fault it is then up to the prosecution to disprove that the explanation is a valid one.

The test to be applied by the court is an objective one, and each case depends on its own particular facts. Cases often appear cut and dried on paper, but cross-examination of witnesses and objective comment from an expert motoring lawyer very often accounts for the difference between acquittal and conviction. The prosecution might argue that the facts speak for themselves but the case still has to be proven to the criminal standard of proof which is "beyond reasonable doubt."

If you call us we will advise you on the options you have once we have reviewed all the papers which have been sent by the Court. You will have choices to make and we will do our best to explain these to you.

Careless Driving Case Studies

August 2008:- Our client, a civil engineer, was accused of careless driving. It was alleged that he turned out of a junction and collided with a motor cyclist. The police arrived at the scene after the accident but failed to formally interview him. The case was fully prepared for trial, and it was apparent to the solicitor handling the case at our office that the prosecution would not be in a position to prove the identity of the driver. At the close of the prosecution case, a submission of no case to answer was upheld on those grounds.

December 2007:- A student who instructed motoringlawyers.com was alleged to have swerved onto the opposite side of the road, causing a cyclist to veer off the road to avoid a collision. His account was that there was contaminant in the road which caused his wheels to lose grip and skid, causing him to lose control of the vehicle. The police had failed to carry out a proper inspection of the road following the accident despite this explanation having been put forward by our client. The prosecution was unable to disprove the account that had been put forward by him to explain why the accident occurred and he was acquitted.

December 2006:- Our client, a travelling salesman, was negotiating a sharp bend when the wheels of his car locked causing his vehicle to veer onto the other side of the road and cause a collision. Following investigation by the team at motoringlawyers.com it transpired that the bend in question was unsafe due to the lack of warnings to motorists of the extremely sharp bend in the road and the condition of the road surface. Following various representations to the local council and the Crown Prosecution Service, the case against him was discontinued.
In all the above cases, orders for our clients' legal costs to be paid from central funds were made by the Court.

Call motoringlawyers.com now on 0800 009 4209