Police officer fails in appeal against careless driving conviction

The Sheriff Appeal Court upheld a sheriff’s decision to convict and impose a fine after ruling that a driver of a vehicle displaying blue lights and sounding its siren “is not relieved of his or her obligations to drive with due care and attention”.

Sheriff Principal Mhairi Stephen QC, sitting with Sheriff Principal Duncan Murray and Appeal Sheriff Peter Braid heard that the appellant Lesley McAllister was driving a marked police car under blue light conditions and proceeding along the A96 in Aberdeen on 28 June 2016 when a red Mini, driven by Sarah Scott, was signalling an intention to turn right into Ashgrove Road.

The police vehicle, which was travelling in the same direction as the Mini but a distance behind, was on the wrong side of the carriageway, namely the carriageway for oncoming vehicles, and overtaking stationary or slow moving vehicles also heading towards Aberdeen city centre.

As the police vehicle approached the junction with Ashgrove Road Ms Scott commenced her right turn and the “almost inevitable” collision occurred, resulting in damage to both vehicles and the police officer in the front passenger seat of the police car being injured.

Both drivers were charged with a contravention of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and following trial at Aberdeen Sheriff Court both drivers were convicted of careless driving and were disposed of in an identical manner with a fine of £400 together with four penalty points endorsed on their licences.

However, the police officer who had been driving appealed both conviction and sentence.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the sheriff erred in repelling a defence submission of “no case to answer”, and that conviction should be “quashed”.

His argument was predicated on the observation that the collision only occurred because of the failure of the co-accused to drive with due care and attention.

The appellant was not speeding and it was not clear from the sheriff’s findings what the police officer could or should have done to avoid a collision.

Without that collision there would have been “no criticism” of the appellant’s overtaking manoeuvre, it was submitted.

On the question of penalty the submission was that the sentence imposed was “excessive” and that there were “special reasons” for non-endorsement of the appellant’s licence with penalty points.

It was argued that had the sheriff followed the guidance given in Watt v Murphy 2016 SLT (Sh Ct) 247 and applied that to the facts of this case he ought to have found that special reasons existed.

The advocate depute submitted that the sheriff had not erred in either repelling the submission under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 or convicting the appellant of a contravention of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It was emphasised that the emergency services owe a duty to other road users and there can be no suggestion that they are entitled to take “greater risks”.

Refusing the appeal, the court considered that the findings in fact “amply justify” the sheriff’s decision to convict.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Stephen said: “He took the view that the appellant ought to have reduced her speed and adjusted her road position to enable her to bring her vehicle to a halt in the event that the third party vehicle did commence its manoeuvre much in the same way that she would approach a red stop light which she intended to pass through. The sheriff has set out his findings in fact and the evidence upon which he makes these findings with considerable care and clarity and his reasoning cannot be faulted.”

The penalty involved a fine and a modest number of penalty points not disqualification, but it was submitted that there were “special reasons” not to endorse the appellant’s licence with penalty points, in terms of section 44 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

But the court observed that a driver under blue light conditions “is not relieved of his or her obligations to drive with due care and attention”, adding that while cases turn on their particular facts and circumstances it was important to recognise that the sentencing court requires “to balance the proper application of road traffic law and its penalties with the pressures under which first responders act when answering emergency calls”.

The Sheriff Principal concluded: “For the reasons given by the sheriff, to which we have already referred, the sheriff considers that the appellant as she approached the junction ought to have been aware of the hazard presented by the vehicle signalling to turn right and ought to have taken appropriate steps to moderate her speed and ensure that the driver of the right turning vehicle was aware of her presence. It is clear from the sheriff’s findings in fact that these steps had not been taken by the appellant. Accordingly, we see no basis on which we should interfere with the sheriff’s decision on the s.44 submission or on the fine imposed.”