It was for a judge rather than a jury to decide on the criminal standard of proof, with the burden resting on the prosecution, whether “an accident” had occurred within the meaning of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.2 , which would obviate the requirement under s.1 of the Act for the service of notice of intended prosecution on an individual charged with dangerous driving. EWCA Crim 926
In a case where there were no aggravating factors, a sentence of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving was manifestly excessive and was substituted with a term of 12 months’ imprisonment. EWCA Crim 2374
The court stipulated sentencing guidelines for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving and careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. EWCA Crim 996
A fine totalling £100,000 for health and safety at work-related offences was reduced to a total of £55,000 on appeal after taking into account: (i) the offending company’s culpability; (ii) the extent of any criminal default; and (iii) by reference to the mitigating and offending factors contained in F Howe & Son (Engineers Limited (1999) 2 All ER 249. EWCA Crim 458
The district judge was clearly in error in his objective appraisals of a collision between two cars, and there was no basis for concluding that the defendant was at fault. EWCA Civ 302
In the absence of any other evidence, the court could infer that the only possible cause of an injury to the claimant’s finger was a faulty magnetic catch and a protruding screw. EWHC 233 (Admin)
The court did not have to examine highly unlikely evidence to convict when there was sufficient evidence before it to justify a conviction for driving without due care. EWHC 247 (Admin)
The judge’s conclusion that the claimant and defendant were each 50 per cent liable for a road traffic accident was entirely appropriate in circumstances where the claimant had been travelling too fast and the defendant had failed to observe the claimant overtaking him. EWCA Civ 1557
In circumstances where the judge had heard all of the witness evidence for himself, the Court of Appeal was in no position to overrule the judge’s conclusions even though there were uncertainties as to the precise location of a road traffic accident between the claimant and defendant. EWCA Civ 1674
The Deputy Chief Inspector of the Railways had the power, under s.22 Health and Safety and Work Act 1974, to serve a notice which prohibited activities even though they had ceased following a serious rail accident. EWHC Admin 78
Evidence did not support the judge’s finding that the driver was negligent in failing to brake when another car overtook and then cut in front of him.
A pet food company successfully appealed against a #600,000 fine for a Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 offence where the judge had wrongly sentenced on the basis that the company had put profit before safety.
Successful appeal against conviction upon a guilty plea at Swansea Crown Court in March 1999, to an offence contravening reg.13(2)(a) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. That regulation covered only the actual preparation of designs, not arranging other companies to prepare designs.