R v Sekhon 2025
AN was driving his vehicle with his granddaughter, C, in the front passenger seat. He stopped his vehicle at a junction before moving forward out of the side road. S’s vehicle smashed into the side of AN’s. AN died of his injuries and C was seriously injured following the collision.
The prosecution case that S was driving dangerously relied on evidence that S had more than three times the acceptable limit for cannabis in her blood - which was determined by a sample taken hours after the crash - and that her driving and reaction times were impaired at the time of the crash. Had she not been driving far below the standard of a competent and careful driver, she would have been aware of and would have seen, and not collided with, AN’s car.
The defence case was that S was not driving far below the standard of a competent and careful driver, she was not impaired by any cannabis and had not been found to be impaired at the field impairment test. S denied driving at an excessive speed, although accepted that she was driving above the speed limit, and asserted that even though her driving was not safe, it was not dangerous.
S was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
S applied to renew her application for leave to appeal following refusal by the single judge on the grounds that the trial judge was wrong to admit the THC evidence when there was no evidence that she would have been adversely affected at the material time.
Held
Application to renew leave to appeal conviction refused. Conviction upheld.
The evidence had been correctly admitted.
A two-limbed legal test for evidence of impairment by drugs and alcohol was set out in the case of R v Mcbride (1994). The first limb asks whether the evidence in question tends to show that the amount of drink or drugs taken was such as would adversely affect the driver. That limb was met on the evidence in this case as the blood sample showed S was three times over the legal limit in the hours after the crash and that this was likely to have been higher at the time of the crash. The second limb is an alternative and is applicable where there is evidence to show that the driver was adversely affected by the drink or drugs taken. The judge found that there was such evidence in the form of witness evidence about the excessive speed that S was travelling. The evidence of excessive speed was combined with evidence of S’s erratic driving. Experts corroborated the eyewitness evidence, suggesting speed significantly in excess of the applicable limits. Therefore, the second limb was also satisfied.
The court found that the prejudicial effect of the cannabis consumption evidence did not outweigh its probative value. The issue of whether S had consumed cannabis which had, or likely had, impaired her driving responses was clearly relevant for determination by the jury.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
