Metropolitan Police v Guy Richard Drummond-Hay 2024-11-15
Dramatis personae
- Stratford Magistrates' Court
- 7 November 2024, afternoon session
- Court 4
- (J) Judge: DJ(MC) Bone
- Case: 01TJ1128524
- Charges:
- Careless driving, s 3 Road Traffic Act 1998 — guilty
- Failure to give name and address in an accident, s 170 RTA — no case to answer
- (D) Defendant: Guy Richard Drummond-Hay
- (DC) Defence counsel: Linda Byron
- Prosecuting body: Met Police Force
- (PC) CPS counsel: [omitted by her request]
- (C) Claimant: Shayla Marie [?]
- (W) Witness: Petra Malley
- (LA) Legal adviser: [?]
- (OIC) Officer in case: Jackie [?]
Transcript
This is mostly near verbatim, from contemporaneous notes (after edits from memory to clean up, fill in gaps, etc).
- [?] = missed word
- [???] = missed phrase or sentences
Pre-trial
[14:07]
J: Case of Guy Drummond-Hay?
DC: I'm here for Mr Hay. I've not seen the prosecutor, don't think anything [???]
P: I'm here.
J: Good afternoon. Is Mr Drummond-Hay here?
[judge steps out]
Discussion between counsel
PC: [gives name].
DC: [gives name].
PC: The prosecution has 2 witnesses.
DC: The defence is not seeking to [???]
PC: What's the issue?
DC: Effectively, Mr Drummond-Hay's account is that he didn't know what the complainant was doing in the road. He tried to slow down. He was startled by the complainant's actions, which caused him to momentarily lift his foot, causing bus to move. In relation to failure to provide his details, it's our case there was no injury that would require him to provide details.
PC: Despite that he made contact with her on more than one occasion?
DC: That's up to the judge. He pulled up to the bus stop and looked around. She wasn't there to give details to. That's my instructions. These are people… barristers in chambers.
PC: Did you need to speak to me about anything else?
PC: The statement references she had [???] medical treatment, so we're just relying on [???].
DC: In terms of [sentencing] if he is convicted, where would you be putting it?
PC: If he is convicted, according to the sentencing guidelines, we would say high culpability because it's a bus.
DC: Yeah.
PC: There was a high level of traffic, and she says she's been injured. If he finds guilty, that there's been an injury.
DC: Potentially. [???] driving is quite a high threshold.
PC: The main issue is failure to stop.
DC: If found guilty on failure to stop, the main issue [???]
PC: There's suspected injury caused. Arguably you could say that [???] hitting someone with a bus, you could say that injury caused is category 1, aggravated injury.
DC: It's a matter for the judge. His bottom line is anything more than [?] points is effectively the end of his career.
PC: It's aggravated, category 1, [?] duty to provide [???]. I think that's his biggest problem, rather than the careless.
DC: It's an unfortunate incident. Out of curiosity: this accident that happened on the side of the road, do we have any information abut that?
PC: I don't know. [???]
DC: [???]
PC: The complainant? My reading is she was just a passer-by good Samaritan.
DC: Right, we'll see where we get.
PC: [??] forms were sent out.
DC: Which ones?
PC: Driver detail forms.
DC: We accept that [?]. We agree that a complaint was made to the police and was identified as the driver by [?]. However, [???]
PC: Yeah. Do you want to stipulate as to time injured, just read it out?
DC: Yeah, fine.
PC: [???]
DC: [???]
PC: [???] donated, but there wasn't any factual dispute [???] fill out the form [???]
DC: [?] did think it was unusual…
PC: Jackie, are we still taking on the case?
OIC: Ashkari is here.
LA: Don't know if [?] is coming in again, [???]
LA & OIC: [missed several interchanges]
LA: Shall I bring the judge back?
DC: Yes.
Presentation
[14:14] [judge returns]
J: Are we ready to proceed?
DC: Yes.
J: Normally, we have the defendant on the back row, I don't know if your observers want to come forward.
DC: Of course.
J: Members of the public gallery over there, just seat yourself there. Is this Mr Drummond-Hay?
D: I am, sir.
LA: Could you please confirm your name & date of birth?
D: [omitted]
LA: And confirm your address & postcode?
D: [omitted]
J: Is the case ready to be tried?
DC: Yes.
J: Prosecution.
PC: The defendant is charged with driving [?] failure to pay attention, mainly failure to stop. Driving a bus on the [?] of December last year, at a pedestrian who was in the road directing traffic.
J: Did you say 17th?
PC: Apologies, I meant 8th. He drove a bus at a pedestrian while she was in the road directing traffic, after an unrelated road traffic collision. The allegation is that the defendant continued to ram his bus into this pedestrian, and refused to provide his detail. He did not stop — carried on driving. As a result of the defendant's actions, the complainant sustained injuries, including shocks, strains, & sprains. Judge, the issue in this case is that the defendant asserts he was not driving without due care & attention; he didn't know what the pedestrian was doing in the road. [???], was startled by the claimant's actions. [???] The defendant asserts there were [???] which obligate him to [???]
J: Because he didn't make contact?
DC: Effectively, because there was no personal injury that would require notification, and he did look around — after going to next bus stop — so there was no-one there to give details to.
J: What's the evidence?
PC: Complainant, Shyla [?]; a third party witness, Petra Malley; also CCTV. The Crown bring the case, and it's for the Crown to prove to you so that you're satisfied of the defendant's guilt. The CCTV presents a picture of the defendant repeatedly ramming his bus into a pedestrian, and shows driving at a standard below [???] any reasonable driver would've provided his details.
J: Bearing in mind you've opened it this way, are you proceeding with the correct charge?
PC: Yes.
J: The Crown is saying he ran into pedestrian more than once?
PC: Yes.
J: [???]
PC: With your leave, we'll call witness [???]
J: Yes.
[14:20] [LA has called the claimant to come in by phone]
LA: Judge, the prosecution [?] two witnesses.
J: [???] That assumes the defendant gives evidence. Then again [??] expected [???].
PC: Yes, there's a reason why I made that observation, but I won't trouble you with it.
J: Apparently you know something I don't. Well, we'll find out.
Testimony 1: claimant (pedestrian directing traffic)
[Claimant has entered the court, gets on the witness stand]
LA: Come over here.
LA (with C repeating after each phrase): I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
J: You can remain standing. I'll hand you over to the prosecutor.
Direct examination
PC: Could you please confirm your name?
C: Shayla Marie [?]
PC: Is it OK to call you Shayla?
C: Yes.
PC: Can you tell me where you were that day?
C: I was on [?] by Arnos Grove station.
PC: What were you doing there?
C: I was returning from [?].
PC: What'd you see?
C: I was crossing over the island, two cars here, traffic was building up on both sides because of an accident.
PC: So you saw a road traffic accident?
C: Yes.
PC: So traffic had been building up because of the accident?
C: Because of the island, traffic was trying to move around the island, blocking the oncoming.
PC: What'd you do when you saw traffic building up?
C: I saw there were people in distress, thought, "how could I help so they could clear it out and clear the road".
PC: So what'd you do?
C: I began directing traffic, put my hand up to stop traffic, direct oncoming traffic, [???]
PC: How long for?
C: Approximately 10 minutes.
PC: Did you have any issues?
C: No, multiple cars & busses passed through in that time.
PC: At what point… I think it's accepted there was an issue at some stage. Could you explain to the court the issue stage [???]
C: The road is on a slight slope, the traffic was [???], I was running between the two…
J: (interrupting) There was an issue, you were explaining what you were doing, explaining what happened.
C: As I came up to the road to stop busses, I put my hand up, turned around to let oncoming traffic, to let them know they could come. As I turned my back and began to signal to oncoming traffic, I saw a bus push me — as I turned around to speak — that's when I suppose the incident began.
PC: Just to confirm, you directed the bus to stop?
C: Yes, each time I was running backwards & forwards, I was running with my hand in the air, so they could see I was coming to support on that side, maybe a few minutes between stopping [???]
PC: So you were talking about the point at which you see the bus.
C: Yes, [???] coming up back.
PC: At that point, you're stationary in front the bus?
C: Yeah, I signalled [???] bus
PC: What did the bus driver do?
C: I felt the bus come like that [gestures] in my back, turned around to say I was directing traffic and try to explain. He was angry, it was all quite a bit, traffic came back up, I was still getting pushed by the bus further down the road. There was a lot of public in shops etc watching me, they ran up trying to explain to the bus driver, the traffic started to come up.
PC: Was the bus driver listening to you?
C: No. Hw wasn't listening to anybody. I don't know why — he was shouting. I couldn't feel confident what his words were.
PC: How would you describe the bus driver's action?
C: I was in shock. I'd done this previously, some others were stopping to thank me, members of the public stopping to thank me. The road comes up to [?] motorway, so it's a very busy direct road, the amount of busses I'd seen in that time… It'd built up, I was just trying to alleviate the traffic.
PC: And once you were struck by the bus, [???]
C: [gestures, making a sound]
PC: Then what?
C: [???] got out, shouted [???]
PC: [???]
C: [???]
C: He didn't get out, he shouted [???]
PC: Then what?
C: Because a lot of people were speaking to him, I went around to usher him through so he came through. He went to park at the train station to let people off the bus.
J: He stopped to let passengers off and then was on his way?
C: Yes, [???] details on video [???] photos [???]
PC: [???] Did you remain on the scene?
C: As [???] one of the ladies who saw what happened, she approached the bus driver, so at that stage they transferred details, [???] out the road so that traffic could flow.
PC: How long were you at the scene?
C: About 3 to 5 minutes after this happened. I was given details by various members of the public because they were shocked at what happened.
PC: Were you still directing traffic?
C: [???]
PC: Did you sustain injuries?
C: Not [???] I wasn't hit with such force, it give me more of an anxiety.
PC: When you say anxiety…?
C: The whole process of all of this has taken a bit of a strain on me. It was a few nocks, but not at speed. I was a bit achy afterwards.
PC: I'm grateful. Shayla, I'm going to play CCTV footage, run through it with you if I may.
[14:36] [computer noises]
J: If you want to turn round to see the scene behind you, it may or may not be easier.
PC: Do you recognise yourself on the footage?
C: Is that me?
J: This is video from inside the bus.
PC: Do you accept that's you, Shayla?
C: Yes.
PC: You were directing the bus. Do you remember what you said to him?
C: Stop. It [???]
PC: What were you doing there?
C: I was directing traffic to come up.
PC: He was continuing to hit you wasn't he?
C: Yes.
[pause]
PC: And he's just hit you again hasn't he?
C: Yes.
PC: What were you doing with your phone?
C: I was taking a picture of the licence plate on my phone, that's me running. If you see white car, cars have collided, that's the reason, I've run down to stop traffic now that they've stated to move vehicles.
PC: No further questions. [???]
Cross-examination
DC: I'm going to ask questions on behalf of the defendant. Is it OK to call you Shayla as well?
C: Yes.
DC: If you don't understand, feel free to ask; if you can't answer, you can't answer. If I understand the evidence correctly, you were a good Samaritan?
C: Yes.
DC: In the aftermath of a collision?
C: Yes.
DC: [???] aftermath [???]
C: Yes.
DC: One car hit back of another?
C: Yes.
DC: It's not immediately obvious from the other side of the road what happened, is it?
C: If you had a view looking up to the road, they're sitting slightly higher, when I ran away from the bus I was running downhill. The traffic, when I was directing it, there were already queues [???] They'd already been able to see me from a distance directing traffic. So my expectation from [???] others who'd seen me prior to this, especially those who were sitting slightly higher up, not just uphill, [???]
DC: So that's on your assumption of what could be seen? You can't say with certainty what someone other than yourself would see?
C: I've lived there for 30 years, I go to work there every day, my view outside my work is that. So as a driver who drives that route and that road, I know that you can see a considerable distance on that road, from my experience.
DC: You weren't in official capacity to help were you?
C: No.
DC: You weren't wearing a high-vis?
C: No.
DC: In your evidence in chief, you were running around road behind the island, correct?
C: As I would run, I would put my hand up to say "stop, stop".
DC: You were facing both directions doing that?
C: When some would go through, I would put them on a bit, everyone would stop, [???]
DC: [???] fair to say that some drivers, but it's not immediately obvious to everyone.
C: All drivers up to that point had understood, a lot had stopped to say thank you. A lot were in the area when the collision first happened.
DC: If you want to see the video, please say. Do you accept that when [???], you were in the middle of [???]
C: [hesitating]
DC: Would it be easier to see the video?
C: Yes.
[DC scrolling video]
DC: If I could just pause [???]
C: So that's me put my hand up, [???] moving on this side — on his side of the line.
DC: But your back face?
C: [hesitating]
J: The question was asked, the pedestrian in road, she's using her hand. If we continue forwards, we see a pedestrian who's in the middle of the road moving her hand again, she's certainly visible in the middle of the road.
DC: Thank you, Judge. When you stepped into the middle of the road, there's not a great distance between you and the bus?
C: Where it's through now, no.
DC: [???]
C: I'm on his side of the road the whole time, just in the middle, on left side the whole time.
DC: [???]
C: All the videos, I'm on the left side of the line, the whole time.
DC: Shayla, do you drive yourself?
C: Yes.
DC: So you're aware of stopping distances.
C: Absolutely, I'm the first to take safety precautions, check for pedestrians around me, pedestrians crossing the road…
DC: So a bus would need more space to stop, wouldn't you agree?
C: It depends on conditions, weather conditions, [???]
DC: I submit that the bus is a quite a large vehicle with passengers not wearing seatbelts.
C: Yes.
DC: If the bus would sop suddenly, it's quite a large risk to passengers?
C: [???]
DC: The suggestion is that Mr Drummond-Hay wasn't able to stop because it would've caused a significant danger to passengers to stop.
C: Every time [???] the bus went into back of me, because the bus was [jolting braking gestures], it would've kept jolting the passengers.
?: [???]
DC: If we could move on with the video?
J: Before we do, could we move back? This is video from the bus, it's agreed evidence, Included in it, there's an indication of the bus' speed. Doing 4mph, 5mph, actually accelerates while pedestrian in view, and keeps on accelerating.
C: Yes.
J: If that's the agreed evidence, then that's what the evidence shows.
DC: Yes, thank you. Shayla, you said that you asked him to stop, around this stop, is that correct?
C: Rewind the video [???]
[DC scrolling video]
C: [???] around this time I said "stop, stop", there were other members of the public [???] saying "stop, stop".
DC: And you're stood with your back to the bus?
C: I think it shows me with my back to the bus [???] shows the bus coming into my back, I turned around to tell him "stop, woah, woah".
DC: Is it not the case — and the defence says it is — that you said "stop the fucking bus because I told you to"?
C: No.
DC: And that you could call for assistance?
C: No.
DC: Because he didn't say that?
C: No [???] what he was saying was directed to members of the public trying to talk with him through his window, not directed at me, no.
DC: You didn't tell him what the issue was, did you?
C: No, I didn't get to. I turned around, when I was saying "stop, stop, stop", at some point [???] saying "there's been an accident, stop".
DC: Let's review the footage for a few seconds.
[DC playing video]
C: So that's talking to people at the site, around the shops, members of the public coming in front of me to film, [???]
DC: The defence suggests [???] will rewind a few seconds so it's clear what we're talking about. As a driver yourself, are you aware how a vehicle can move if you step on the brake, a jolting movement perhaps?
C: If I keep [gestures stomping] the bus, it cold make a jolt.
DC: [???]
C: Right [?] experience of driver, regardless of whether he knew what I was doing, I don't think it's okay to do that…
DC: The defence submits it's quite a chaotic scene.
C: It became chaotic once the bus started pushing me. I couldn't push the bus back.
DC: The suggestion is that you put your body in front of the bus. Did you lean on the bus with your body?
C: No. When I touched the bus, it moved up into me, I leaned forward slightly, it moved forward slightly again. I can't stop a bus! I wasn't leaning against bus, I can't push up against the bus, the only contact was when the bus pushed me forwards.
DC: If you can't answer this question, please say so. The defence suggests that Mr Drummond-Hay was quite shocked, and that caused his foot to slip off the brake. From your experience, what would you say about that?
C: From my experience, the first thing I was taught was to secure the vehicle, put your foot on the brake — always make sure the vehicle was secure first.
DC: The defence suggests that Mr Drummod-Hay has a duty towards his passengers.
C: I accept that the driver has a duty towards the passengers, but I don't believe that duty was [?active], they were more [?], people were jolted, they were getting up for their stop.
DC: You weren't on the bus.
J: You're saying she can't give evidence as to whether your client kept putting his foot off the brake.
DC: My apologies, Shayla, I'll play the next bit if that's okay.
[DC playing video]
DC: At this stage, do you know what was directing this traffic down?
C: No, the… this is coming up, the bus was coming down.
?: [???]
C: I stopped the yellow car, they'd waited for the [?] to come down, I stopped the bus to let the yellow car through, they're still going around the vehicles blocking the other lane, [???]
DC: From your knowledge of the area, has [???] affected [???]
C: As you come off the bus station, into the main road, some busses might turn round the main road [???] train station, just shortly after that red car, would've pulled into the train station to come to a stop.
DC: Thank you. The suggestion, will play the next bit up until
[DC playing video]
DC: [???] at this stage, you've moved away from the bus, haven't you?
C: Yes.
DC: Can you see this gentleman here, coming out of the car?
C: Yes, as [???], I'm letting him past, I think I said [???] — I was in quite a lot of shock, said I can't keep [???] can't keep [???]
DC: The bus stops here.
C: What I'm doing, letting them know [???] letting them through so they know [???]
DC: The bus stop here.
C: Because there's members of the public talking to him, I think. At the station, the bus coming up [???]
DC: It's suggested by the defence that Mr Drummond-Hay didn't know what was going on and was somewhat wary of your actions, as he didn't have knowledge that you were acting as a good Samaritan at that time.
C: Are you suggesting he believed I posed a threat?
DC: No, just that he didn't know what you were doing.
C: In my experience as a driver, [???] pedestrians have more right of use, [???] [hesitating for words]
J: "Hierarchy of road users" is what you're going for.
C: I'm aware of, highly aware of my surroundings. I like to think I'm a safe driver, I know the highway code, I use the road and pathways in a safe manner.
DC: There's no suggestion that you don't use the road in a safe manner. The suggestion is just, he was trying to get bus to safe place, as he didn't know what was going on.
C: So he was trying to get to safe place by pushing me under the bus, under the wheels of that car?
DC: You shouted at him?
C: I said I'll report it to the police.
DC: You shouted, "you'll be in fucking trouble"?
C: No.
DC: [???]
C: [???] never been through something like this before, didn't expect to get to here.
DC: Did you go to doctors at all?
C: No.
DC: When Mr Drummond-Hay got to [???] stopped [???]
C: The bus stopped and let passengers off, but the bus driver didn't get off and give details.
[Claimant's phone rings, judge makes soothing joke I didn't transcribe]
[several sentences not transcribed]
C: We were both in shock, I didn't want to put her [???]. We were trying to calm each other down, went into [?] shop, we went back, don't believe I was out [???] [?] called 111, [???]
[several sentences not transcribed, judge asked claimant some questions; no re-examination]
DC: (to judge) No further questions?
J: No further questions. Can I take a reference?
C: Thanks.
[Claimant leaves court room]
Testimony 2: witness (rear-ended driver)
J: Call the other witness.
PC: Yes, call Petra Malley.
J: Okay.
[15:06] [waiting for witness to come in]
[witness has entered the court, gets on the witness stand]
LA (with W repeating after each phrase): I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
J: Good afternoon. If you wish to sit down, please do if you're happy to stand up, please do. You'll be asked questions by the prosecution and then the defence.
Direct examination
PC: Could you confirm your name please?
W: Petra [?]
PC: Is it OK to call you Petra?
W: Yes.
PC: We're going to be talking about an incident on December [?]. Can you tell us about the incident?
W: I was involved in that incident, I was hit from behind, by a driver behind me.
PC: After that, a member of public came to assist?
W: My car was [???], a car behind me was quite squashed, he was causing [???] traffic on the lane. [???]
PC: A member of public came to help with dispersing that traffic?
W: Yes.
PC: But at some stage, there is an issue?
W: Yes.
PC: Can you tell me about what happened, when that issue arose, from your perspective?
W: She was letting cars pass for 20, 30 seconds in each direction, as you say there was no issue for a few minutes. There was a bus approaching very very slowly [???] he started waving his hands and shouting to move away, that he needs to pass to get to the station. He was not stopping, he was moving closer and closer to her.
PC: Was he being asked to stop?
W: Yes, people around were asking him to stop.
PC: Did you have any interaction with him?
W: Eventually, yes, because he was getting closer to the lady, [???] touched our jackets?
PC: So you're saying he made contact with the lady?
W: Yes.
PC: I'm going to play some footage for you. You'll notice I haven't started it from the beginning. Can you see yourself?
W: No?
PC: Can move on a bit.
W: Yeah, I'm the one recording — mobile phone.
PC: I'm going to fast forward. Of course you can't comment on what the driver was doing on the inside, but [???] he opened there isn't he?
W: Yes.
PC: Is it right that he was speaking to people outside?
W: He was waving his hand angrily.
PC: One of people he was speaking to was you?
W: Yes.
PC: No further questions.
Cross-examination
DC: Thank you, Petra. I'll ask questions on behalf of the defendant. So the car in collision was yours?
W: Yes.
DC: In front?
W: In front. [???]
DC: To you, from other side of road, was it to you clear that there was an accident… that wasn't very clear. At any point were you some distance down [???]
W: Not until I got to the bus.
DC: At that point was it obvious that you were in an accident?
W: No, [???] there as some smoke from the bonnet, but no signs why there is a queue and [???]
DC: You said to my learned friend that there was a lady directing traffic?
W: Yes.
DC: Did you know her?
W: No.
DC: She was directing traffic?
W: Yes.
DC: Did drivers ask you why she was directing traffic?
W: No.
DC: She was effectively doing it herself?
W: Yes.
DC: She wasn't in an official position to do so?
W: No.
DC: The lady was going from one side of the road to the other, directing traffic, wasn't that right?
W: Yes.
DC: Away from your car and towards your car at times?
W: Yes.
DC: [???]
W: It was clear to me, can't speak for other drivers
DC: Thank you. The time came when the bus approached. Did you see the bus approach the lady?
W: I saw the bus come [???]
DC: When did you first notice the bus approach?
W: There was shouting, there were other people shouting for him to stop, the bus was not stopping, she was raising her voice, the first time I was paying attention, [???]
DC: Did you know she raised her voice because the bus wasn't stopping, or did you assume she raised her voice because bus wasn't stopping?
W: I assumed.
DC: Did you see her [???]
W: [???]
DC: She was shouting quite loudly.
W: Yes.
DC: Did you hear what she said?
W: Something like, "do you see that he's not stopping", because there's [???] on the pavement.
DC: When she was stood in front of bus, did you see the bus move?
W: Yes.
DC: How would you describe the bus move?
W: Very, very slowly.
DC: [???]
W: [???] came from far, [???]
?: [???]
DC: Did you see the bus drive off, move along the road [???]
W: [???]
DC: [???]
W: [???]
DC: Did you see where it went?
W: [???]
DC: Did you speak to the lady after?
W: Yes.
DC: How long?
W: 2-3 minutes. She was saying "did you see it", she'd be reporting it. Another guy had video as well, offering assistance. I did the same, we exchanged numbers, asked if I'm okay, she was on break from work [???]
DC: How long was the conversation?
W: 2-3 minutes.
DC: Was anything else said in that conversation?
W: No.
DC: No further questions.
Re-examination
PC: Just a further, Judge, quickly… You agreed with my friend that it might not've been obvious from where the bus was that there was a collision in the road. I'm going to play the footage to you again. That's your white car, isn't it?
W: Yes.
PC: Can you see the lights flashing on your car?
W: Yes.
PC: Why was that — why were your lights flashing?
W: Because I wasn't moving and put on…
PC: What are those lights?
W: Hazard lights.
PC: Which by their nature, show an incident in the road.
J: No further questions, that concludes your part in this trial. Thank you.
[witness leaves] [15:23]
Half-time
PC: There are some further statements agreed, I'll give a summary if I may.
J: Has the summary been agreed?
PC: No [???]
DC: [???]
J: I'd much prefer that they be agreed.
[prosecutor & defence counsel whisper to each other for a bit]
PC: Yes, in regards to Atkinson, it's agreed that the defendant was sent the form [???] apologies, London General Transport Services Limited sent [???]. They responded to that. The response was received 10 Jan 2024, nominated the defendant as the driver. The defendant was then sent form at 963 directly, it was posted on 10 Jan 2024, response received from defendant on 20 Jan 2024, indicating he was indeed the driver at the time. There's a statement from Jo Richard [???] that he downloaded the CCTV, a statement from [???]. [???] CCTV. Judge, that concludes the Crown's case.
J: No halftime submissions then?
DC: Yes.
J: It's because the duty to identify arises only if there's an injury?
DC: Yes.
PC: Judge, whilst her initial responses were that there weren't any injuries, but she indicated stress [???]
J: How was that attributed, from accident or from what follows [???] she was very clear on cross-examination that she didn't seek medical attention.
PC: Yes, but she said she was "achy", her evidence was she was "achy" from contact being made from a substantially large motor vehicle being driven at her repeatedly. You'll be familiar with the test in the case of Galbraith ([1981] 1 WLR 1039, (1981) 73 CrAppR 124 (CA), [1981] 5 WLUK 173).
J: If there's no evidence, it's easy, if there's [?] evidence, [???] tenuous.
PC: [???] there is some evidence of injury.
J: [???] has not arisen in my 25 years as a criminal lawyer, if there's no evidence of injury — if on face of it nobody's claiming there was an injury — there's a huge difference [???] there was accident, the obligation only arises when there's injury. The witness was clear she wasn't injured, she said she sought no medical treatment, no psychiatric treatment, no aches, [???]. If someone [???] no injuries, does he have a responsibility to stop? She was clear on the matter.
PC: Those are my submissions. One would assume that he'd get out and at least canvas.
J: Exactly, I agree, s 170 Road Traffic Act 1998 says, "This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver". Your witness said there were no injuries didn't she?
PC: Those are my submissions.
J: [???] I'll play devil's advocate. The difficulty is GBH, GBH can be physical and psychiatric, accident can cause harm. But that's in the case of an obvious scenario like domestic violence.
But this is in a scenario when there's a damage accident taken place or personal injury accident taken place. There's case law on this. A driver who's aware [???] 1948, involved old fashioned car, guns, or [???]
The prosecution has to prove that she was injured. The witness herself said she wasn't injured. I think there's no evidence to support this charge. So there's no case to answer.
DC: May I turn my back to explain what's happened in layman's terms?
[defence counsel whispers with defendant]
[some interactions between judge and counsel missed]
Testimony 3: defendant (bus driver)
[defendant comes up to the witness stand, is sworn in]
[During defendant's testimony, I switched to "summarising the interesting bits" mode rather than verbatim transcription mode, so this is much more sparse and approximate, and not in the actual Q&A format it was in. Which is a bit of a pity, because the cross-examination was utterly devastating, with the defendant ranging from self-incriminating to absurd. The prosecutor addressed the defendant by "Mr Drummond-Hay", rather than by first name as she did with the other witnesses.]
J: You're a witness just like the two others today. First by your lawyer, then the prosecution.
DC: Could you confirm your name?
D: [omitted]
[???]
D: I was nervous because the claimant had started shouting at him to "stop the fucking bus", you hear on the news that people stop buses to attack people. There's a button on the outside to open the bus. I'd be safe in cabin but the passengers [???] wanted to know what was happening [???].
[???]
D: I can't break heavily because it'll stop suddenly, elderly passengers etc will fall forward, will be held liable anyway. And will injure self — will injure midsection on steering wheel.
[???]
D: I was too nervous to do anything else because she was shouting at me. I said "if you move away, I can pull in". [???] She was telling me "stop because I said so".
[???]
D: I was nervous because she was right up against the bus and she wasn't responding, she said I was about to run her over, going to kill her. I was really nervous, calling the lady over. She said (whiny tone) "Did you see that? Did you get that?"
[???]
J: (watching video) You're moving forward, while there are two pedestrians in road in front of bus.
[???]
[discussion of hierarchy of road users]
D agrees pedestrians at the top of the hierarchy.
(J or PC): The bus falls towards end of the hierarchy of road users?
D: I don't know.
[???]
[PC puts rule 204 of the Highway Code on screen:]
Rule 204: The road users most at risk from road traffic are pedestrians, in particular children, older adults and disabled people, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older adults and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders. In any interaction between road users, those who can cause the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they pose to others.
[ some discussion of that]
[???]
D: It could've harmed her, she could've lay down in front of the road, she wasn't crossing, she was in front of my vehicle. She crossed in the path of a moving bus.
[???]
D: If a pedestrian is remaining stationary in front of the bus, we're supposed to stop and call for assistance. She wasn't responding to questions.
[???]
D: So I should've slammed my brakes on and hurt my passengers?
J: Your role is to answer questions.
W: She was shouting, so I needed to get closer.
[???]
PC: Why were you accelerating towards the pedestrian?
D: I didn't hit the pedestrian, she walked into the road as you can see.
[???]
D: Would you rather I injure the pedestrian or my passengers?
[???]
D: I start moving forward because they're moving away, but they were still in front of the bus.
[???]
D: I always look irate, it's not because I am.
[???]
PC: There was an incident? [???]
J: You're going into area now where I've said there was no case to answer.
[???]
DC: How long have you been a bus driver?
[???]
J: So you pull up to the bus stop, let passengers off, have you got the handbrake on?
D: No.
J: So you're moving forward because your foot jutters on the pedal or whatever, it gives stability.
[???]
DC: What training did you get to begin to be a bus driver initially?
[???]
D: It was quite strenuous, there were lots of courses [???] if you haven't got original licences it is quite hard, out of 100 roughly 10 left. It is mentally quite difficult, quite strenuous, 'cause there are sometimes long distances with no toilet breaks.
[???]
DC: How often is your training as a bus driver refreshed?
D: Depending on legislation [???] come to classroom maybe once every year, depending [???]
[???]
?C: Will be asking you questions [???] it's agreed you were driving [?] route [???]
[???]
D: I didn't use the hand brake because I was afraid she'd press the button to open the door from the outside.
J: [to the effect of] Seriously, that's your evidence?
D: Yes.
[defendant leaves witness stand]
Summing up
PC: Defendant owed Shayla a duty of care. Any reasonable driver would've not acted the way the defendant acted. I invite you to find the defendant guilty of careless driving.
J: Breach of the highway code in itself doesn't make an offence accrued. It can be proof. [Note: see s 38(7) Road Traffic Act 1988]
DC: [to the effect of] That's what I was going to say.
J: Sorry to spike your guns.
DC: The defendant didn't fall below the standard of a careful and competent driver, faced with significant difficulties, not knowing what was going on around him.
[missed other bits of closing argument]
Judgment
[switched back to verbatim mode]
J: The prosecution brought this case, and had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, to make me sure of the defendant's guilt.
The allegation remaining is careless driving. Under s 3 Road Traffic Act 1998, s 3ZA(2), "A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."
In relation to this case, I have heard reference to the scene being chaotic, and I have heard reference to the defendant not knowing what the claimant and witness were doing in the road. I don't care if they were crossing the road slowly, doing an impromptu dance in front of the bus, or lying down as part of a protest. There were pedestrians in front of the bus. When the complainant was first visible, it was clear she was in the road, she was stationary in the road, yet the speed of the bus did not decrease, it increased.
As for suggesting that you have to slow down gently because of passengers, I accept that. There was no effort to slow the bus. The bus was allowed to strike the pedestrian.
Not only was the bus allowed to strike the pedestrian, there was further evidence, CCTV, that the defendant was, to put it mildly, animated. He was gesticulating out of the window. He looked angry. The lady does say stop. The bus moves forward. It makes contact with the pedestrian on more than one occasion. When the independent witness comes forward, the bus has been stationary for some time. There are two pedestrians in front of the bus, and the bus moves forward again.
The defendant says he has no idea what's going on, that he panicked in case this was some sort of mad woman who might invade his bus and endanger passengers. Let's be frank, he's annoyed because she's slowing him down; he's been driving in traffic for who knows how long, he's irritated, can be any number of things, what we can see on CCTV.
Now let's talk about what actually had happened that day.
There was a road traffic accident. The claimant was not in any way involved in it — she was on her lunch break. What'd she do? I suspect many of us, including myself, would not have thought of going into the road to help. This claimant did not — she was going up & down the road, beckoning people through, allowing traffic to flow, so traffic could go past. She was doing a good deed.
The defendant in this case didn't stop to find out what was going on. He struck the claimant, and kept on moving forward even when there were two pedestrians in front of him. He's driving the bus, actually making contact with… the bus actually making contact with the pedestrian, while actually driving the bus. Oh my goodness! I'm staggered! While driving a bus‽
(to defendant) It's very fortunate that you were not accused of reckless assault, very fortunate indeed. When a bus driver, or any driver, repeatedly allows their vehicle to come into contact with a pedestrian, even slightly, the standard [???]
The prosecution have made me abundantly sure that the defendant was guilty of careless driving. Sir, you struck a woman while she was taking care of others following an accident.
According to the sentencing guidelines in relation to careless driving, the court should consider only by the factors below, where not in this. [???]
In terms of culpability, I think this shows "aggressive driving", and the bus was used to "carry passengers" — two factors to indicate "higher culpability". Fortunately, there was no injury, no other vehicles — in terms of London it seemed fairly staid to me — so the starting point [for category 2 careless driving] is a band B fine, and consider 5-6 points.
I have to say that I have to come to that conclusion, that it falls in that category, 'cause there's nothing in sentencing guidelines that says 'hitting someone repeatedly'. I'd like to consider that, but it's not in the sentencing guidelines, if there were it would've be category 1 discretionary disqualification. So, given that, I think I'm bound to impose a fine and 5-6 points.
We'll see if the prosecution agree or disagree. Counsel?
PC: I have nothing further to add. [???] £50.
DC: I have nothing further to add in regard to the sentencing guidelines, but it is agreed.
J: I don't like following these guidelines, but it's required.
DC: [missed content regarding adverse impact on defendant's employability as professional driver]
J: Only 6 points.
DC: My understanding is that it's a matter for employer. He's no longer employed by the employer he worked for there. He's still a bus driver, that's a matter for his employer. For someone who's a professional driver, fewest points [???]
J: If the sentencing guidelines allowed me to disqualify him, I would. It was manifestly below the standard of driving that "would be expected of a competent and careful driver". [???] finances?
DC: [something about his monthly pay]
J: (to defendant) Stand up please. I'm imposing a fine of £450 and £180 surcharge. You had trial and lost. The prosecution seeks [£160? either misheard or missed content]. That's a total of £1,280. I'm imposing 6 points. How quickly can it be paid?
DC: Defendant asks it to be paid in 12 months.
J: I'm going to say £150 per month unless you say that's impossible.
DC: [agrees]
J: The first payment is to reach the court within 28 days. Thereafter £150 per month. If you don't pay, collections may be ordered.
That concludes this case. You may go.
My summary & comments
The claimant had witnessed an unrelated vehicle rear-end collision, which was blocking the road, and went to the street to help direct traffic around it. The defendant was driving a bus, and she shouted at him to stop; he did not stop, but instead drove into her repeatedly at 5-7mph. He was charged with failure to provide information at an accident, and with careless driving.
On the charge of failure to provide information, after the claimant testified that she was not really injured at the time (only felt sore afterwards), and had made no suggestion otherwise at the time, the judge (in my view rightly, assuming that his statement of the law is correct) dismissed that charge on no case to answer, because the charge has a statutory element of injury or damage, and the defendant cannot be expected to know what future injury might manifest in someone who has no apparent or complained-of injury at the time.
Prosecution counsel examined both the claimant and the witness as to their views of what a driver exercising reasonable caution would have done in this situation. That seemed to me to be likely inadmissible (as their opinions have no relevance, and they were not there as expert witnesses — perhaps a bus driver trainer could have done so), and a waste of the court's time.
On the charge of careless driving, the witness testimony was rather discursive, but the substance of it is quite short. The facts stated above were undisputed and were the sum of the claimant's and (collided-with driver) witness' testimony, together with some testimony by the claimant about the visibility on that road, with which she was very familiar owing to living or working there for many years. The defendant testified that he was concerned for the safety of his passengers, firstly, because he didn't know what was going on and was concerned that she might press the button on the outside of the bus which opens the bus doors and might then board the bus and harm his passengers; secondly, because in order to stop without jolting his passengers, he had to feather the brake rather than stop hard.
Although CPS' cross-examination of him was in my view very well done, and utterly devastating to his defence — he would have been rather better off not testifying at all — there were a few points that were in my view overlooked.
On the first point (fear of hijack), his testimony seemed to me to be either not credible or, if credible, indicative of such a grave defect of character that he ought not be a professional driver of any kind. He was, in my view wrongly, not asked any follow-up questions about his supposed fear of her boarding the bus. For instance, he could have been asked
- whether she made any motion or glance towards the bus-opening button;
- whether he could, within the bus, close or lock the bus doors if they were opened from the outside in this manner;
- what previous incidents he had heard of where something like this had happened, and how they were or weren't similar to the incident at issue;
- etc.
In any event, I do not think it in any way relevant whether the driver knew she was directing traffic or whether there was an accident (although the testimony adduced leaned towards him seeing the hazard lights from the accident vehicles) — nor indeed did the judge, who in summing up quite rightly said that he didn't care whether the claimant had been directing traffic, crossing the street, doing a dance, lying down in protest, or whatever else, as she was a pedestrian, he was driving a bus, and he repeatedly drove his bus into her, which is simply inexcusable. Unless there is indeed some truly extreme risk from random pedestrians shouting at a bus to stop as a ruse to board the bus and rob the passengers (a rather modern form of train robbery, perhaps?), such a reaction to an otherwise rather ordinary situation and facially reasonable request, especially in a city like London and in the context of what seemed to be clear impact on traffic, seems completely unreasonable. If indeed the driver held this as a genuine subjective fear — a point on which I was not convinced either way, though I somewhat incline towards believing him that it was a factor — that fear seems to me objectively unreasonable. I am at a loss to understand how someone could possibly be a professional driver, let alone in a busy city, while unable to cope with such minor unexpected circumstances. I viewed his testimony of not having expected it as cutting against him, since it goes to his fitness to drive.
On the second point (need to stop slowly), although I have no reason to doubt his testimony that a bus needs to be feathered to a stop in order to not harm the passengers by a jolting sudden stop, he utterly failed to claim that he somehow lacked sufficient time to do so successfully. Indeed, had he testified otherwise, I would have considered it to cut against him, since it seems to me a fairly fundamental rule of driving safety that a bus driver must at all times be able to safely stop short of a not-yet-seen crosswalk; if he was driving too fast to do so, he would on that account have been committing an offence (though as a point of law, I do not know what offence that would have been, nor whether it would be within the offence with which he was charged). I simply see no possible excuse premised on the braking characteristics of a bus as to safely coming to a complete stop short of a crosswalk, short of a situation like someone darting into the crosswalk during a green light without enough time for the driver to brake. It seems to me so patently absurd as a defence, in the situation presented, that it might be sanctionable for defence counsel to even have presented it, though again this is a point of law which I do not know.
In short, while the defence on failure to provide details was correct, the defence on the careless driving charge was utterly without merit, and I cannot see why he did not plead guilty to it; the defence presented had, in my view, no hope of success.
As to sentencing, the judge sentenced him to a band B fine and 6 points, as category 2 under the sentencing guidelines. The judge said that he did this because, in his view, he was constrained as a matter of law from taking into account aggravating factors not expressly listed in the sentencing guidelines, such as the aggravating factors in the nature of 'you repeatedly drove your bus into a pedestrian, are you mad?' (to paraphrase his summing up), and that he would have sentenced the defendant to disqualification if he could have done so.
However, having read the sentencing guidelines for careless driving, I question whether the judge was entirely correct as to his assessment that he was not entitled to disqualify the defendant. This depends on points of law which I do not know, and CPS did not respond to it when asked by the judge for their views.
As an initial matter, the guidelines say that category 1 requires "higher culpability and greater harm". I agree with the judge that there was not greater harm (as the claimant was not injured, nothing was damaged, and the level of traffic was only moderately elevated, which are the only listed factors for determining harm). I furthermore agree with the judge that the guidelines plainly say that the listed factors are the 'only' ones by which culpability and harm may be determined. Therefore, I agree with the judge that he was constrained to consider the offence to be category 2, not category 1.
However, the guidelines go on to say
The court should then consider further adjustment for any aggravating or mitigating factors. The following is a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in an upward or downward adjustment from the sentence arrived at so far.
Although indeed driving repeatedly into a pedestrian is not a listed aggravating factor for sentencing — those are only previous convictions; offence committed while on bail, licence, or post-sentence supervision; failure to comply with current court orders; and contravening a red signal at a level crossing, none of which apply — this seems to me to be a very clear situation where the bolded 'non-exhaustive' caveat should have effect, and the sentencing range of 5 vs 6 points is inadequate to effectuate it.
The Sentencing Council page cites s 59(1) Sentencing Code, to the effect that courts must follow the sentencing guidelines unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Although I agree that under the guidelines, the offence was indeed category 2, and the maximum ordinary range sentence for category 2 was the one imposed — band B fine and 6 points — this seems to me to have been a situation where it was contrary to the interests of justice not to disqualify the defendant from driving as a profession (at least pending successful completion of anger management classes, retraining, and then a period on supervision), because it seems to me (both from the undisputed facts and from his self-devastating testimony) that he poses an active threat to the general public to be allowed to continue driving a bus, and I doubt that points on his licence are sufficient to effectuate either specific deterrence or rehabilitation — whereas anger management and other training might do.
I note further that:
- sch 2 pt 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 says that RTA section 3 (Careless, and inconsiderate, driving) is prosecuted summarily, punishment of level 5 on the standard scale, discretionary disqualification, obligatory endorsement, 3–9 penalty points.
- s 28 RTOA 1988 says in (1) that the number of points is as listed, and its only apparent clause allowing discretion to apply a different number of points, (3B), does not appear to apply — so the court likely had the power to apply up to 9 points, not only 6, but no more.
- s 34(3) RTOA 1988 says that a court may order discretionary disqualification "for such period as the court thinks fit", and does not appear to limit it to any particular circumstances — so the court likely had the power to disqualify under the aggravating circumstances.
- Anthony & Berryman's Magistrates' Court Guide 2024 states:
C[5.4] Disqualification. … In every case where the court can order an endorsement it has the discretion also to disqualify. …
C[5.38] The court has a discretion to disqualify until an ordinary test of competence is passed where the offender has been convicted of any offence involving obligatory endorsement. The defendant is entitled to drive but must display L plates and be supervised. In cases where the court is exercising its discretion it must have regard to the safety of road users and an order is inappropriate as a punishment, but is suitable for the following cases: … (c) where the manner of the defendant’s driving suggests a threat to the safety of other road users (R v Miller (1993) 15 Cr App Rep (S) 505, [1994] Crim LR 231, CA). See the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s 36
Careless driving is an obligatory endorsement offence. However, s 36 RTOA 1988 applies only to specified acts. The statutory list in (2) doesn't include s 3 RTA careless driving (it includes s 2 dangerous driving), but (3)(a) includes ss 34 & 35 disqualifications, and (3)(b) includes "such other persons convicted of such offences involving obligatory endorsement as may be so prescribed", though I don't know what the Secretary of State prescribed on it. If it does apply, it appears to be mandatory (making passing a test a prerequisite to removal of disqualification), and that seems to me appropriate in this case. - MCG C[25] (careless driving) does not appear to address this otherwise, except by repeating the above points, at C[25.1] and C[25.20].
- The Adult Court Bench Book (May 2023) says, in section 1:
- Discretionary disqualification
- 61. The court has discretion to order disqualification for any endorsable offence. Penalty points and disqualification cannot be imposed for the same offence
- Disqualification until test passed
- 87. Where the sentencing court has power to order obligatory or discretionary disqualification, it can order disqualification until a driving test is taken and passed.
- 88. This provision may be ordered in addition to any order of disqualification or as an order in its own right.
- 90. The prime reason for making an order is in the interests of road safety. It is not intended to be used as an additional punishment.
So, to my view, this depends on the following questions of law, which I do not know and were not addressed in court:
- what the guidelines mean or allow when they talk about "further adjustment" of the sentence for other aggravating factors;
- what constitutes a situation where failing to make an upward departure from the sentencing range would be "contrary to the interests of justice";
- whether the court has the power to order a partial disqualification (e.g. from busses but not private vehicles or lorries), or to offer the defendant the option of voluntarily agreeing to such a partial disqualification in return for the suspension of a total disqualification; and
- whether my interpretation of the RTOA is correct.
Lastly, I question CPS' decision to charge the defendant only with careless driving, rather than something more serious, or failing to charge him with assault and battery by vehicle (however that is formally put), as he plainly did commit that, and it may have allowed for more appropriate sentencing options.
