Kai Nathanial Holder v R

Kai Nathanial Holder v R

It was open to the jury to consider the absence of a helmet on the pillion passenger as part of the circumstances relevant to the standard of driving and the obviousness of danger under section 2A(1) RTA 1988; the judge was correct to allow this factor to be considered, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Kai Nathanial Holder; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, Protective Headgear Requirements, Standard of Driving, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Dangerous Driving Causing Death by Dangerous Driving Protective Headgear Requirements Standard of Driving Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kai Nathanial Holder

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment After Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure of a pillion passenger to wear a helmet is relevant to the standard of driving for dangerous driving under section 1 RTA 1988
  2. 2 Whether legislative exemption for Sikhs affects the application of helmet requirements to dangerous driving
  3. 3 Whether the judge was correct to allow the jury to consider the absence of a helmet as part of the dangerous driving analysis

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury to consider the absence of a helmet on the pillion passenger as part of the circumstances relevant to the standard of driving and the obviousness of danger under section 2A(1) RTA 1988; the judge was correct to allow this factor to be considered, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld
  • sentence and disqualification remain as imposed