Written by: Shelley Gregory, PNLD Legal Adviser
Not reviewed after the date of publication - 25 February 2025
On 25 November 2022, the lives of the Parker family changed forever. Five days before his 15th birthday, Harry Parker was fatally injured by a car as he crossed the road on his way to school. The driver of that car was Ivy Mwangi. Mwangi did not have a driver’s licence, and she had no insurance. Legal Adviser, Shelley Gregory, highlights the relevant legislation and the alleged lacuna in the law that the “Harry Parker” Bill seeks to resolve.
Legislation
Having initially left the scene, Mwangi was later located by the police on the same day of the incident and arrested. Mwangi was subsequently charged with three offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death while driving without a licence and insurance.Causing Death by Careless Driving
Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides for the offence of causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving and states:
“2B A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.”
There is a statutory definition of careless or inconsiderate driving given in section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subsections (2) and (3) provide:
“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…
...
3ZA(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) or (2B) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver or constable (as the case may be) in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”
PNLD offence document H8562 refers, with the points to prove for this offence being:
- date and location
- caused the death of another
- by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle
- on a road/public place
- without due care and attention/reasonable consideration
Therefore, whether the driver departed from what would be expected of a careful and competent driver would primarily be an objective question of fact in the circumstances. In the case of McCrone v Riding (1938), it was held that the standard of driving required by a driver is an objective one, impersonal and universal, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway. However, the particular circumstances of each case must be considered subjectively as what may amount to careless driving in one situation may be acceptable in another situation.
Causing Death While Driving Without a Licence and Causing Death While Driving Without Insurance
Section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides for the offence of causing the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst, at the time of driving, committing an offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence or when uninsured. The legislation provides:
“3ZB A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road and, at the time when he is driving, the circumstances are such that he is committing an offence under -
(a) section 87(1) of this Act (driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence), or
(b) repealed
(c) section 143 of this Act (using motor vehicle while uninsured).”
Section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
“87(1) It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.”
Section 143(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
“143(1)(a) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act -
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and”
PNLD offence document H100124 refers, with the points to prove being:
- date and location
- caused the death of another
- by driving a motor vehicle on a road
- the circumstances were such that you were committing an offence under
- s.87(1) RTA 88 by driving the vehicle otherwise than in accordance
- with a licence authorising you to drive a motor vehicle of that class OR
- s.103(1)(b) RTA 88 by driving when you were disqualified from
- holding/obtaining a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle of that class OR
- s.143 RTA 88 by using the vehicle when there was not in force
- in relation to the use of it such a policy of insurance
- in respect of third party risks as complied with the requirements
- of Part VI of the RTA 88
For offences committed pursuant to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Supreme Court clarified the issue of culpability in the case of R v Hughes (2013). Hughes was driving a camper van without a full driving license and without insurance (but otherwise without fault), when a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction collided with him head on. The driver (D) of the other vehicle suffered fatal injuries. It was proven that D, who was driving under the influence of drugs and had been driving erratically, was at fault for the collision. It was accepted that there was nothing Hughes could have done to avoid the collision. Hughes successfully appealed against his conviction under section 3ZB of the Act. The Supreme Court held that section 3ZB of the Act required at least some act or omission in the control of the car, which involved some element of fault, whether amounting to careless/inconsiderate driving or not, and which contributed in some more than minimal way to the death. Driving a motor vehicle on a road without a license or insurance that is involved in a fatal collision was not enough to prove the offence.
Discontinuance of the Case
A trial date was set for Mwangi for 25 February 2025, however, the Crown Prosecution Service made the decision to discontinue the case due to a lack of evidence. The following comment from a representative of the Crown Prosecution Service was published at the time by the media:
“We keep every case under review to make sure that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction… We examined this case in great detail – including obtaining the advice of a forensic collision expert – and it has become clear that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that this collision could reasonably have been avoided, and therefore that the driving was careless."
The public are not privy to the full details of this investigation, but the family of Harry Parker described the decision not to prosecute Mwangi as an injustice. It was asserted that an unlicensed person who drives a motor vehicle on the road is driving carelessly.
The Harry Parker Bill
Looking for a positive to come from this tragedy, the Parker family are campaigning for slower and safer roads around all schools and are seeking to change the law with the introduction of the Road Traffic (Unlicensed Drivers) Bill, known as the “Harry Parker Bill”. This is a Bill to provide that an unlicensed driver who has never held a valid driving licence and who causes the death of another person by driving commits the offence of careless driving under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and for connected purposes. The bill was described as not just a policy matter; but being about justice, accountability and preventing future tragedies.
This Bill was introduced as a Private Members’ Bill under the Ten Minute Rule and received its first reading in the House of Commons on 4th February 2025 where is was said,
“We must ask ourselves how it can be that a person can drive illegally and take a life, yet face no legal consequences. How can it be that knowingly operating a vehicle without a licence is not automatically deemed careless or dangerous driving? The answer is simple: our system is flawed.
A person who does not hold a valid licence has no business being behind the wheel of a car, and when they are, they put lives at risk.”
Final Word
The current legislation could have been drafted in terms which left no doubt that a driver within section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was made guilty of causing death whenever a car that he was driving was involved in a fatal accident, but such language was not adopted. Instead, the expression "causes ... death ... by driving" was used and this imported a concept of causation. It is understood that the lack of evidence on this element of the offence led to the discontinuance of the case by the Crown Prosecution Service.
It is well-known that only a minority of Private Members’ Bills actually become law, and, coupled with the fact that the Road Traffic (Unlicensed Drivers) Bill was introduced under the ten minute rule, there will be doubt surrounding any potential success. However, the introduction of the Bill has given the Parker family a voice and publicity on this tragedy to further their cause. If the Bill is successful, an unlicensed person who drives a motor vehicle on the road and is involved in a fatal collision, will be deemed to be careless and would be liable to prosecution pursuant to the Road Traffic legislation, irrespective of their standard of driving.
The next stage for this Bill is a second reading which is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons on Friday 13 June 2025.
Want more of this type of content? Check out our range of legal articles here.
