February 01 2010
Dangerous Driving – Extensive Driving Training Deemed Irrelevant

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the special skill or lack of skill of a driver is not relevant when determining whether or not he is guilty of dangerous driving. Craig Bannister, who had completed a police advanced driving course, lost control of his car on the M4 whilst driving at 113 miles per hour in wet conditions, in the dark and with no lights on. In the lower court, it was common ground that whether or not Mr Bannister had been on duty and responding to an emergency call was not relevant when considering whether he should be convicted of driving dangerously. Even though the police drive quickly when responding to an emergency call, they are not allowed to drive dangerously. However, Mr Bannister argued that the earlier ruling in Milton v Crown Prosecution Service – in which it was deemed relevant to consider in such cases those circumstances in favour of the defendant, such as the possession of advanced driving skills, given that unfavourable circumstances such as drunkenness or illness could be taken into account – was relevant to his case. In his summing up to the jury, the judge had referred to the ruling in Milton but Mr Bannister was convicted of dangerous driving under Section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Mr Bannister appealed on the grounds that the judge’s summing up had not been clear. He had failed to convey to the jury the correct position based on Milton and the conviction was therefore unsafe. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the reasoning in Milton that a driver’s skill has any bearing in such cases. The test to be applied is clearly set out in the Act. It is an objective test of the competent and careful driver. To treat Mr Bannister differently from someone without his level of experience and training would be inconsistent with that test. However, the Court did find that there was a real risk that the jury had been confused by the summing up in this case with regard to the correct test to be applied. It therefore quashed Mr Bannister’s conviction for dangerous driving and substituted a conviction for careless driving.