The Supreme Court has ruled that a charge of careless driving causing death does not require the prosecution to prove that the accused intended the outcome or drove recklessly. It must prove that the driver failed to meet the standard of care and attention expected of a reasonably competent driver, and that the driving caused the death or serious bodily harm.
The Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the legal test for the offence. The appeal followed a Court of Appeal decision overturning Michael O’Shea’s conviction after a trial judge wrongly told the jury that careless driving causing death was a strict-liability offence. The Director does not seek to uphold that conviction and intends to proceed with a retrial.
The case arose from a fatal roadworks accident in County Kildare on 9 January 2013. Kevin O’Sullivan was helping with roadworks on a public road when he was struck by a car driven by O’Shea. A jury convicted O’Shea of careless driving causing death in November 2014.
At trial, O’Shea’s account was that he did not know about the roadworks because there were no warning signs, and that strong morning sunlight limited his vision. The prosecution argued that a driver whose vision was obscured should have stopped. The Supreme Court said the appeal did not concern the factual merits of either side’s case.
The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s view that a jury had to find intentional or reckless driving. It said the 2011 amendment made the existing careless-driving offence triable on indictment where the driving caused death or serious bodily harm; it did not create a separate offence with different elements. The prosecution must prove the underlying failure to drive with due care and attention, and, for an indictment based on death or serious bodily harm, prove that consequence was caused by the contravention.
The judgment described careless driving as an appreciable fall below the care expected of a reasonably competent driver in the circumstances. It distinguished that offence from dangerous driving, which involves a direct, immediate and serious risk to the public, and from gross-negligence manslaughter, which requires a much higher degree of negligence. The fact that a death resulted does not by itself make careless driving equivalent to dangerous driving; the consequence is relevant to sentencing but does not determine the sentence on its own.
The Court’s ruling settled the legal issue on the required proof. It did not restore O’Shea’s conviction or determine whether the prosecution can prove the charge at a retrial.