The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should Mr Kitson have been convicted?

Poll

Should Mr Kitson have been convicted?

R v Kitson (1955) 39 Cr App R 66 (CA)
A drunk man who had fallen asleep at the back of the car, after his brother-in-law had drove him to X, awoke to find the car moving down the hill, and he steered the car to safety, avoiding injury. He was convicted of a drink-driving offence.

Should he have been convicted? Its important to consider the implications of the law allowing the defence of necessity, that is when a person claims to do 'the lesser of two evils'.
Lord Denning, in the case Southwark LBC v Williams, said:
"if hunger was allowed to an excuse for stealing, it would open a door through which all kinds of lawlessness and disorder ..."

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
He should get a conviction, but the judge should be light handed and suspend it.

That way everyone is happy.
Avada_Kedavra

Lord Denning, in the case Southwark LBC v Williams, said:
"if hunger was allowed to an excuse for stealing, it would open a door through which all kinds of lawlessness and disorder ..."


Allowing no excuses for stealing deters against stealing. Surely in this case Mr Kitson would have behaved exactly the same way, risk of prosecution or not?
Varsity
He should get a conviction, but the judge should be light handed and suspend it.

That way everyone is happy.


Except Mr Kiton ...

Should he really be convicted of drink-driving when he was trying to save himself? The car was going down the hill when he woke up
If he was in the back of the car sleeping off his drunkenness and left the handbrake off it was his fault anyway and a clear case of drunk driving.
Huw Davies
Allowing no excuses for stealing deters against stealing. Surely in this case Mr Kitson would have behaved exactly the same way, risk of prosecution or not?


no perhaps I should have said Lord Denning was explaining that you can't use the defence of necessity - that is the lesser of two evils - as a justification. Hence, hunger doesn't justify stealling food.

But surely, in this case if we apply that rule - that you can't do the lesser of two evils approach - then he should not have saved himself and get injured, at the least?
Reply 6
Good bloke
If he was in the back of the car sleeping off his drunkenness and left the handbrake off it was his fault anyway and a clear case of drunk driving.


Indeed. He made a mistake with a car, whilst drunk.

Whats not that different from his drunken mistake being he thought the road went via that big oak tree.
Good bloke
If he was in the back of the car sleeping off his drunkenness and left the handbrake off it was his fault anyway and a clear case of drunk driving.


no the law is interested what happened after he woke and touched the steering wheel as police officers came to investigate his eratic driving and discovered his drunkness.

But the point is if he had not touched the steering wheel (to avoid injury & perhaps death) he would have acted lawfully but still be injured/killed?
Varsity
Indeed. He made a mistake with a car, whilst drunk.

Whats not that different from his drunken mistake being he thought the road went via that big oak tree.


Actually the facts of the case extend to the fact that his brother-in-law was driving and left the handbrake off. And he woke up drunk and tried to save himself and was convicted.
Reply 9
I don't see the issue here. In any case doesn't recklessness apply here? And the mens rea seems to hold consistent enough for him to be convicted.

Edit: I skimmed throught he facts. And it seems that necessity should have been considered. I think this was a policy decision. They didn't want to create a precedent which would allow drunk drivers a defence of necessity. But it seems unaccountably harsh. Necessity is a very hard dfence to mount, anyhow, as even the most necesitous circumstances can still land you in hot water.
Gilliwoo
I don't see the issue here. In any case doesn't recklessness apply here? And the mens rea seems to hold consistent enough for him to be convicted.


voluntary intoxication is no defence as to recklessness
he had the mens rea + actus reus , without a doubt.

But my question is one of the principle of necesstity - he had broken the law to save himself or injury - you don't actually know as he did save himself whatever could have happened.

EDIT: oh ok, yeah I agree, but its a nice topic to debate? I am thinking of bringing some legal debates here, so this is a tester to see how people react.
I have a great one on police powers etc .. I ALSO HAVE SOME GREAT EU ONES .... bloody caps lock ... but i'll let EU controversy settle a little - as i get the impression people are a bit put off!
Reply 11
Avada_Kedavra
voluntary intoxication is no defence as to recklessness
he had the mens rea + actus reus , without a doubt.

But my question is one of the principle of necesstity - he had broken the law to save himself or injury - you don't actually know as he did save himself whatever could have happened.

EDIT: oh ok, yeah I agree, but its a nice topic to debate? I am thinking of bringing some legal debates here, so this is a tester to see how people react.
I have a great one on police powers etc .. I ALSO HAVE SOME GREAT EU ONES .... bloody caps lock ... but i'll let EU controversy settle a little - as i get the impression people are a bit put off!


I'm currently reading Law's Empire and a couple of books on legal reasoning, and I think the above case shows something interesting about how judges work. Interpreting the law is rather like critiquing a poem or a piece of art. Often, your premises will be picked depending on what YOU have chosen to make relevant, rather than what is objectively material.

R v Stone and Dobinson shows an example. In that case Stone's sister lived with Stone and Dobinson. Both of them were mentally "soft". The sister was anorexic, and although ill she refused to leave her room to seek medical attention, Stone and Dobinson made some effort to care for the sick woman, but did not call the medical services. Eventually she died. Stone and Dobinson were convicted of manslaughter. The essence of their appeal was that, first, they had no legal duty of care to the sick woman and, second, the prosecution could not demonstrate that `recklessness' necessary to support a conviction of manslaughter. The Appeal Court ruled that on the first point the accused had assumed a duty of care, by allowing the sick woman to live in their home and making no other arrangements for her. On the second, the court ruled that `indifference to an obvious risk' did constitute recklessness.

Can they really have been said to have had a duty of care? Much less the mens rea considering their mental limitations? That case stretched the law on manslaughter to its absolute limit, because the circumstances of the case were so disturbing they probably felt a conviction was needed.
He should've thought "Hmm, if I stop this car from potentially ploughing in to innocent pedestrians, I am breaking the law. So I shalln't."

:rolleyes:
Reply 13
AnythingButChardonnay
He should've thought "Hmm, if I stop this car from potentially ploughing in to innocent pedestrians, I am breaking the law. So I shalln't."

:rolleyes:

He'd have been ****ed either way, which is what makes it so unfair. No doubt it reflected a censorious attitude to "being drunk" in the first place, ont he part of the judges.
What if I was in the back of the car. Not drunk, just under 17 and no driving licence.

Would that be different?
Baaaaasically, you should be thinking about the reasoning behind the law. That's how I work. Why was it put in place? It helps to give direction to your argument.

In this case, it was put in place to protect other road users from harm because of willful intoxication.

He was willfully intoxicated in a place where he shouldn't have been. He was therefore rightfully prosecuted, especially considering he could have harmed other road users.

Aaaaaaalso, I really don't believe him. He was frickin driving.

Avada_Kedavra
I ALSO HAVE SOME GREAT EU ONES .... bloody caps lock ...


You knew it was on, but you 'shouted' anyway. Strange young man.
Reply 16
There shouldn't have been a conviction. Stealing is different, because it's not a victimless crime. In this case, considering that there were no victims, but there would've been victims had he not done it. Law for the sake of law is stupid.
AnythingButChardonnay
He should've thought "Hmm, if I stop this car from potentially ploughing in to innocent pedestrians, I am breaking the law. So I shalln't."

:rolleyes:


He was drunk.
Reply 18
HCD
There shouldn't have been a conviction. Stealing is different, because it's not a victimless crime. In this case, considering that there were no victims, but there would've been victims had he not done it. Law for the sake of law is stupid.

I'd disagree. Dangerous driving - whether a car careering down a slope, o a drunken driver trying to control it - is potentially a crime that can involve victims. That nobody was hurt here is a matter of moral luck (i.e. where an objectively "wrong" act has no consequences, only for the fact that the perpetrator was lucky). I doubt it was law for law's sake. The problem was, if they allowed necessity, then next week, a person may use Kitson as an authority to explain away what is essentially a very dangerous activity: driving while drunk.
Reply 19
Avada_Kedavra
He was drunk.

and he was being facetious.

Latest