Thesis Master Text

THE DRINK- AND DRUG-DRIVING OFFENCES AND THE CRIMINAL LAW PARADIGM by Pauline Mary Callow Thesis submitted in May 2014 to the School of Law at the University of Sheffield with a view to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Abstract This thesis reports on research into the offences, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended, of driving, attempting to drive, or being in charge of a vehicle when unfit through drink or drugs, with excess alcohol, or (under provisions to be brought into force) with an excess of a specified drug. The research was primarily literature-based, using legal doctrinal analysis, supplemented by empirical research. The offences are examined in the contexts of four principles said to govern how the criminal law and the law of evidence are framed: the preconditions for strict liability, the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self-incrimination and the principle of legal certainty. The literature and case law are reviewed, and the drink- and drug-driving offences are found to offend all four principles. Uncertainty about the prescribed limit for driving with excess alcohol – by far the most commonly prosecuted of the offences – emerges as the most significant breach. To explore this, the scientific background to the offences is explained, and the literature on what drivers understand the limit to mean is reviewed. An original study on the point is reported, and it is concluded that the drink drive limit, while scientifically precise, is not understood by most drivers. Despite the difficulties of fitting these offences into the traditional paradigm, it is concluded that a way of accommodating them in the legal theory must be found. The possibility of an alternative paradigm is canvassed, perhaps being justified by the success of the drink-drive legislation in reducing death and injury on the roads, and by recognising a special responsibility on drivers, a duty which may have to include foregoing some of the protections afforded by the traditional criminal law paradigm. [Word count: 97,115] iii Preface This is a work about the law relating to drink- and drug-driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the substantial case law elaborating the statutory provisions. I have sought to explain the nature of the offences, and to place this complex body of regulation into the general framework of the criminal law. I find that in fact it defies the traditional paradigm, instead inhabiting a universe far removed from the world of mens rea, presumed innocence, burdens of proof and certainty of legislation that I learned about as an under-graduate. Its failure to meet the standards traditionally said to govern how the criminal law is framed poses a challenge for legal theorists. I suggest that this be resolved by contemplating a different paradigm – one that acknowledges and accommodates the extraordinary contribution this area of law has made to reducing death and injury on the road, and recognises a special position, vis- à-vis the law, of those who drive. My gratitude is due to the many people who have helped and supported me over the years I have been working on this project. In particular, I thank the Portman Group who very kindly gave me access to the unpublished reports of two pieces of research commissioned by them. Those reports were extremely useful in informing Chapters 7 and 8 and in providing points of comparison for my own study, described in Chapter 8. At the University of Sheffield, I would like to thank Professor Sir Tony Bottoms, who first encouraged me to higher study, my Ph.D supervisor Michael Jefferson for his unfailing support and good cheer, Natasha Taylor (now at the Higher Education Academy) for her boundless and generous enthusiasm as she helped me through the novelty and intricacies of data analysis, and, more recently, Andrew Costello for reading and commenting on my draft thesis. Neil Corre of counsel first sparked my interest in this intriguing area of law. That interest has since been sustained with the help of Paul Williams, Head of Forensic Support at Lion Laboratories who kindly read and commented on Chapter 6, and Roger Agombar, consultant in law and police procedures. v THE DRINK- AND DRUG-DRIVING OFFENCES I am indebted also to Lynette Gill, formerly of the Home Office, who kindly read my draft thesis and pointed out a number of errors. Last but not least, my thanks go to my partner, Chris Eliades. The law is stated as at 31 December 2013. PMC 4 January 2014 vi Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................1 The Research Questions and Hypothesis ..............................................................4 Method ...................................................................................................................5 The Structure of this Work ....................................................................................6 The Statutory Framework ......................................................................................7 The Background ...............................................................................................7 The Offences ....................................................................................................8 The Investigation ............................................................................................10 The Prescribed Limit ......................................................................................14 Use of Specimens in Proceedings ...................................................................15 Penalties ..........................................................................................................16 The Principles Engaged .......................................................................................17 Strict Liability .................................................................................................17 The Presumption of Innocence and Reverse Burdens of Proof ....................18 The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination........................................................ 18 Legal Certainty ...............................................................................................19 The Literature ......................................................................................................19 The Nature of the Offences .................................................................................20 Seriousness...................................................................................................... 20 Technology-Led ..............................................................................................25 Non-Paradigmatic ...........................................................................................25 Endangerment ................................................................................................26 Mala in se; Mala Prohibita .............................................................................30 Conclusion ............................................................................................................31 Chapter 2: Strict Liability ..............................................................33 Introduction ..........................................................................................................33 The Theoretical Background ...............................................................................33 The Nature of Strict Liability .........................................................................33 Fault ...........................................................................................................35 Mens Rea ........................................................................................................37 Negligence .......................................................................................................38 The Presumption in Favour of Mens Rea ......................................................40 Displacing the presumption .......................................................................41 Offences which are “truly criminal” .........................................................42 The effect of the statute ............................................................................43 Issues of social concern .............................................................................44 Arguments For and Against Strict Liability ....................................................46 Road Traffic Offences ..........................................................................................50 In General .......................................................................................................50 The Drink- and Drug-Driving Offences ........................................................51 Driving ......................................................................................................52 In charge.................................................................................................... 53 Excess of a specified drug .........................................................................53 Attempting ................................................................................................54 Aiding and abetting, counselling and procuring .......................................54 The “failing” offences ...............................................................................55 Discussion .............................................................................................................58

Load more