Nathaniel Gadsby, an Associate Solicitor in our Crime Team, represented a client charged with aiding and abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving.

Nathaniel’s client, Mr U, was the passenger in a vehicle that collided with another at excess speed, tragically killing the driver of the second vehicle. The driver pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and received a substantial custodial sentence, yet the Crown Prosecution Service insisted they would proceed with three charges against Mr U, namely:

1. Aiding and abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving;
2. Aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst uninsured;
3. Aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst disqualified;

Mr U was initially represented by another firm before instructing a barrister on a direct access basis. On the basis of advice from that barrister, Mr U entered a guilty plea to aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst uninsured. The prosecution indicated that that plea was acceptable, conceding that there was insufficient evidence to prove aiding and abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving. Mr U later contended that he had not been aware of the offence he was pleading guilty to, nor the consequences of that plea. It was at this stage that he contacted TV Edwards for advice.

Nathaniel took detailed instructions from Mr U about the history of the proceedings before contacting all of his previous representatives to obtain their papers. He also obtained transcripts of the earlier Court hearings, including the one at which Mr U had entered his plea, in order to ascertain the context in which that plea was entered. Having been made aware of our intention to apply to vacate Mr U’s guilty plea, and that criticism was being made of the advice he had given, the barrister previously representing Mr U engaged professional negligence lawyers to protect his interests. Nathaniel liaised with them extensively whilst finalising a written application to the Court with counsel.

The prosecution ultimately conceded the application to vacate the guilty plea, accepting our submission that the initial indictment was legally flawed. Mr U was therefore to be rearraigned on a corrected indictment. At this stage we notified the Court that we would be advancing an application to dismiss the two remaining charges against Mr U, namely:

1. Aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst uninsured;
2. Aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst disqualified;

Extensive legal argument ensued; we contended on Mr U’s behalf that it was insufficient for the prosecution to prove that he was aware that the driver was uninsured and disqualified. Mr U denied knowledge of either, but we submitted the prosecution were further required to prove that Mr U did an act of encouragement or assistance with the intention to encourage the driver to drive in the way he did. We further submitted that the prosecution had insufficient evidence for Mr U to be properly convicted by a jury.

The Judge partially agreed, and dismissed the charge of aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst disqualified. In the intervening 6 months, Nathaniel continued to carefully analyse the evidence, as well as unused evidence disclosed by the Crown, and instructed collision investigators and toxicologists to provide us with reports on various aspects of the prosecution case. He repeatedly urged the prosecution to reconsider their decision to proceed with the case against Mr U, and to clarify the way in which they put their case.

At the trial of the sole remaining charge of aiding and abetting the causing of death by driving whilst uninsured, the Judge allowed a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case, and the jury were discharged. The prosecution chose not to appeal that ruling.

Nathaniel was pleased to achieve such a positive outcome on a lengthy and complex case. Rob Levack of 187 Chambers was instructed, and provided invaluable advice throughout these challenging and ever-evolving proceedings.

Nathaniel’s client was also delighted with the result, and commented:
“Many thanks to Nathaniel for your excellent work on my behalf. You were so thorough, persistent, fair and transparent. I shall always say, “I had the best possible solicitor” to fight my cause. Thank you so much for the hard work and your patience afforded to me through a difficult time. Your support and kindness I shall always remember with much
gratitude. I also want to thank Rob one of the best barristers I was fortunate enough to meet.“

How we can help

The dedicated team at TV Edwards has been at the forefront of criminal defence work in London for over 50 years, offering specialist legal advice on the full range of criminal defence work.

For more information and assistance please email a_crimereferrals@tvedwards.com or call our 24 hour telephone line on 020 3440 8000. We’re here to provide the expert support and guidance you need.