R v Hughes
The offence of causing death by driving while uninsured or unlicensed requires some act or omission in the defendant's driving that contributed to the death.
Facts
Mr Hughes was driving a camper van without insurance or a full licence. On a bend, a car driven by Mr Dickinson, who was under the influence of heroin and had been driving dangerously for some time, veered onto Mr Hughes's side of the road and crashed into his van. Mr Dickinson was killed. Mr Hughes was driving entirely properly and could not have avoided the crash. He was charged with causing death by driving while uninsured and unlicensed under section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that Mr Hughes was not guilty. The words causing death required a causal link between the defendant's driving and the death, not merely his presence on the road. Although his presence on the road was a but for cause of the death, it was not a legal cause, because there was nothing in his driving that could be criticised and that contributed to the death in more than a minimal way. The court said that Parliament would need to use clear words if it intended to impose liability for causing death without any fault in the driving.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
