Hanley v The Director of Public Prosecutions

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Alleyne, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 20 September 2004
• Neutral Citation: KN 2004 CA 5
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 20 September 2004
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2003

Court of Appeal

Saunders, C.J. (Ag.); Alleyne, J.A.; Rawlins, J.A. (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2003

Hanley

and

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Appearances:

Dr. Henry L.O.S. Browne for the appellant.

Mr. Dennis Merchant, D.P.P. and Ms. Janine Hams for the respondent.

Criminal practice and procedure - Death by dangerous driving — Whether the learned trial judge erred in law in his failure to give a full and balanced summing-up to the prejudice of the appellant — Whether the learned trial judge failed to direct or adequately explain to the jury the distinction between causing death by dangerous driving and how to distinguish that driving from other forms of unlawful driving — Appeal dismissed.

Alleyne, J.A.

1 On 10 ^th April 2003 at the Assizes in Nevis the Appellant was convicted after a three-day trial before a jury of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. He has appealed against his conviction and in his Notice of Appeal pleaded four grounds of appeal. At the hearing of the appeal he sought and obtained leave, without objection by the Director of Public Prosecutions, to add a further ground, numbered 3A. Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued only grounds 3 and 3A.

2 The grounds argued were:

3. The learned trial Judge erred in law in his failure to give a full and balanced summing-up to the prejudice of the Appellant.

3A. The learned trial Judge failed to direct or adequately explain to the jury the distinction between causing death by dangerous driving and how to distinguish that driving from other forms of unlawful driving.

3 The Appellant was a Prison Officer and on 28 ^th May 2002 he was assigned to drive five prisoners from the prison on Nevis to Charlestown on the Prison's Land Rover vehicle. The prisoners rode on the back seat of the vehicle, while the Appellant was accompanied by fellow Prison Officer James Browne, who rode on the front passenger seat. Neither officer was armed, and there was no suggestion throughout the trial that the prisoners posed any danger or were liable to attempt an escape.

4 While the Appellant was driving along a road known as Cottle Long Path, he tried to overtake a car which was being driven ahead of him, in the same direction, by Thelma Hunkins. As the Appellant was making the attempt to overtake, the Land Rover touched the car. The Appellant pulled away from the car and the offside front wheel of the Land Rover ran off the side of the road onto the curb. The Appellant tried to bring the vehicle back on the road and in doing so, lost control. The Land Rover flipped, overturning three times, and ended up on its side. The Appellant and most of the other occupants of the Land Rover were thrown clear, but the Prison Officer James Browne and one of the prisoners, Steve Christopher, were pinned under the overturned vehicle. Browne was pulled clear but Christopher died in the fire which consumed the overturned vehicle.

5 In his direction to the jury on the issue of dangerous driving the learned trial Judge said this:

“In order to justify a conviction on dangerous driving there must be not only a situation which objectively was dangerous but there must also have been some fault on the part of the driver causing that situation.

“Fault indicates a failure of falling below the care or skill of a competent and experienced driver in relation to the manner of the driving and to the relevant circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the road and the amount of traffic which was actually at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road. Such fault will often be proved adequately by inference from the facts of the situation.

“Dangerous driving requires proof that the manner of driving was dangerous to the public. If a man adopts a manner of driving which you the jury think was dangerous to the other road users in all the circumstances, then on the issue of guilt it matters not whether he was deliberately reckless, careless or momentarily inattentive or even doing his incompetent best.”

6 Learned Counsel for the Appellant criticized this direction as inadequate and wrong in law. Counsel submitted...