Practice and Procedure

BINGHAM v DPP (2003)

PUBLISHED February 7, 2003

The court did not have to examine highly unlikely evidence to convict when there was sufficient evidence before it to justify a conviction for driving without due care.Appeal by the claimant by way of case stated following his conviction for driving without due care and attention by a Magistrates Court on 14 June 2002. The claimant was a motor-lorry driver who had been involved in a serious road traffic accident. The claimant's motor-lorry jack-knifed negotiating a turn and struck an oncoming vehicle killing its driver. Evidence was adduced at trial that the claimant had braked hard taking the corner causing the lorry to slide. An expert's evidence as to the cause of the accident was not challenged, and the claimant conceded that the application of the motor-lorry's brakes would have caused it to slide. The claimant did not remember applying the brakes. The claimant submitted that the court had not proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt as it had failed to properly consider all other possible causes of the accident.HELD: The court was not obliged to examine highly unlikely possible causes of the accident. It was entitled to make the necessary inference from the facts presented before it that the claimant's actions were the cause of the accident and that the claimant had driven without due care and attention.Appeal dismissed.