The moral that emerged from a mock ‘trial’ held in the new Business Driver Safety Zone is that companies must have robust, unambiguous road safety policies in place for business driving, which must be monitored, followed through and thoroughly communicated to employees.
In front of a fascinated audience, the ‘prosecutor’, Chris Green, from Weightmans LLP, outlined his case against the ‘driver’ in front of three ‘magistrates’, led by John Lawrence, JP.
The case was based on an all-too-common real-life scenario, when a sales manager driving on business collided with another car on an A-road, killing the driver and seriously injuring her eight-year-old son. He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving under s2(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and pleaded not guilty.
His employer, a food company, which was charged under s3(1) of HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of non-employees, pleaded guilty and did not attend ‘court’.
The court heard that the defendant had received a voice message on his mobile phone from his employer telling him to go straight to the offices of one of the company’s biggest clients, because horsemeat had been found in one of their products and the client had demanded an immediate meeting.
However, the driver became distracted, hit a kerb and lost control, crossing the carriageway and hitting the oncoming vehicle. The prosecution alleged that the standard of his driving fell far below that of a competent driver.
When questioned by his barrister, the driver put the blame on his employer for the incident. He said he was not aware of any company policy on the use of mobile phones while driving. He had even bought his own hands-free kit as one had not been supplied by the company and moreover, he had been habitually rung “day and night” by the company, which was well aware that he was driving when they called him.
He was extremely stressed at the time of the incident, but said he had not been on the phone at the time. However, the prosecutor said that whether he was on the phone or not at the time was immaterial, since he had lost concentration, for whatever reason.
A split verdict was given by the audience when asked if they thought the driver was guilty or not guilty. However, the magistrates found him guilty of causing death by careless driving. The prosecutor said that road traffic kills far more people than are killed in the workplace and the authorities are looking increasingly at bringing corporate manslaughter cases in these incidents.
In mitigation, the driver’s barrister said he was a hard-working man and had been off work with stress since the incident. There was no evidence to suggest he had been driving badly, other than a momentary lapse. This did not prevent the bench handing down a 24-month jail sentence, suspended for two years, and subjecting him to a night-time curfew and electronic tag for four months, plus a period of 18 months’ supervision by a probation officer and two years’ disqualification from driving.
The employer was fined £20,000, the maximum fine in a magistrates’ court. The chief magistrate said that the case had been “very close to being one of corporate manslaughter,” and that if that had been the case, it could have been fined £500,000.
Commenting on the driver’s defence, the prosecutor said: “It just won’t wash.”
This eBook will guide you through some of the key understandings you need to be able to manage driver safety effectively and, at the end, provide a series of free resources you can access to help you ensure your own driver safety management system is robust, legally compliant and in line with industry-accepted good practice.
Download this eBook from Driving for Better Business and SHP to cover:
- Why do we need to manage driver safety?
- Duty of care – a shared responsibility;
- Setting the rules with a driving for work policy;
- Managing driver safety;
- Ensuring safe vehicles;
- Safe journeys and fitness to drive;
- Record keeping;
- Reporting;
- The business benefits of good practice;
- Additional resources
