HM Advocate v Cooper (Nathaniel David) High Court of Justiciary [2016] ScotHC HCJ_47 (10 May 2016)

HM Advocate v Cooper (Nathaniel David) High Court of Justiciary [2016] ScotHC HCJ_47 (10 May 2016)

The jury, properly directed, could find that the accused was 'driving' within the meaning of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, even though control was shared and ambiguous, because he remained in the driving seat with the intention to intervene, allowed an unqualified person to operate the vehicle under his direction, and failed to prevent the dangerous driving that caused death. The verdict is consistent with the broader view of 'driving' as advanced by the Crown.

Citation
[2016] ScotHC HCJ_47
Parties
Prosecutor: Her Majesty’s Advocate; Accused: Nathaniel David Cooper
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Trial Judgment/note Following Jury Verdict
Outcome
Guilty (majority verdict) under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with deletion of words relating to moving the seat back and away from the steering wheel and foot pedals.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving, Meaning of 'driving', Joint Control of Vehicle, Corroboration, Section 1 Road Traffic Act 1988
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Dangerous Driving Meaning of 'driving' Joint Control of Vehicle Corroboration Section 1 Road Traffic Act 1988

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Prosecutor

Nathaniel David Cooper

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Trial Judgment/note Following Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was 'driving' within the meaning of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 when two people were in the driver's seat, one on the other's lap, and control was shared or ambiguous.
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient corroborated evidence that the accused contributed substantially to the dangerous driving causing death.

Ratio Decidendi

The jury, properly directed, could find that the accused was 'driving' within the meaning of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, even though control was shared and ambiguous, because he remained in the driving seat with the intention to intervene, allowed an unqualified person to operate the vehicle under his direction, and failed to prevent the dangerous driving that caused death. The verdict is consistent with the broader view of 'driving' as advanced by the Crown.

Court Disposition

Guilty (majority verdict) under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with deletion of words relating to moving the seat back and away from the steering wheel and foot pedals.