Sam Healey was instructed to represent the CEO of a finance company, having been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.After further enquiries, the police then alleged that the driver of the vehicle that collided with the deceased had consumed so much alcohol that the proportion in breath exceeded the prescribed limit. In addition, that the driver had failed to stop after a road traffic collision whereby injury was caused to another person, and failed to report the accident contrary to Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1982 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink contrary to Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is 14 years imprisonment with a minimum disqualification of 2 years and a compulsory extended re-test. For the reasons set out below, having instructed JMW Solicitors LLP to advise, assist and represent during this serious and sensitive case, the outcome was considerably different to what one would have expected in light of what was initially alleged.

Having been instructed by the client as his preferred solicitors over those recommended by the funding insurance company, we were able to arrange within a matter of days for a full forensic reconstruction of the collision to take place. The collision took place in the early hours of the morning and in very unusual circumstances; therefore, by completing a full reconstruction with photographs and videos to visually aid in understanding the circumstances surrounding the collision was key in providing robust and proactive representation on behalf of the client. This allowed us to be clear about the facts of the collision and have an expert’s opinion in relation to whether the collision was avoidable or not. This also allowed further investigations to take place by the defence team and ensured we had a full understanding of the circumstances in which the collision occurred in readiness for a further interview under caution. Having tactically considered how to approach a further interview under caution, whilst charges were then still laid for proceedings to commence at Court, it resulted in the prosecution having to reconsider their initial view that the driving was dangerous and reduce this to one of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) in amongst other allegations.

From the outset of the proceedings (the first appearance at the Magistrates Court), we were able to apply considerable pressure to the prosecution and set out clearly further disclosure that was required. This related to the concerns about the investigation conducted by the police and the accounts provided by an eyewitness. Such requests for disclosure were well founded and having been drip-fed further disclosure of materials and information from the prosecution, we were then able to raise further legal arguments in respect of; the conduct of officers; failings in the investigation generally; links between those investigating the case and witnesses; how witnesses had come to provide their accounts and whether there had been compliance with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. These issues ultimately led to an abuse of process argument being advanced and in addition, applications to exclude evidence in accordance with Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

After changes to how the prosecution put their case upon receiving defence expert reports, trial dates being lost due to inadequate disclosure, over two years having passed since the unfortunate collision, and extensive legal arguments being raised, the prosecution finally accepted that they would have difficulty in proving elements of their case. The ultimate sentence that was passed by the Court was one of a suspended prison sentence with requirements.

Due to the proactive steps taken in the initial part of the investigation, the continued efforts to protect our client’s interests and the detailed and complex legal submissions that were deployed. This allowed Sam Healey and Ben Smitten of counsel (barrister at 25 Bedford Row) to be able to secure a just result for their client of a suspended sentence, as opposed to facing what the police initially alleged and a custodial sentence of up to 14 years.