A, R. v

A, R. v

The judge adopted too confined an interpretation of causation, requiring foreseeability of the exact circumstances. The law requires only that the general nature of the risk and harm be foreseeable, not the precise manner. Therefore, there was a case to answer and a jury could properly conclude that a collision was foreseeable.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Ruling
Outcome
Appeal allowed; terminating ruling overturned
Legal Topics
Causation, Dangerous Driving, Chain of Causation, Reasonable Foreseeability
Criminal Law Causation Dangerous Driving Chain of Causation Reasonable Foreseeability

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's driving was a cause of death and serious injury
  2. 2 Whether the chain of causation was broken by L's actions
  3. 3 Interpretation of reasonable foreseeability in causation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge adopted too confined an interpretation of causation, requiring foreseeability of the exact circumstances. The law requires only that the general nature of the risk and harm be foreseeable, not the precise manner. Therefore, there was a case to answer and a jury could properly conclude that a collision was foreseeable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; terminating ruling overturned

Orders

  • Fresh trial of the respondent on count 1 ordered