Latest Keoghs Insight

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Fourteenth Edition of the Judicial College’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Client Alerts||15/09/2017

Personal Injury Discount Rate

Client Alerts||08/09/2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 to come into force in October 2017

Client Alerts||23/08/2017

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Minibus claims worth over £100,000 stopped dead in their tracks as Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance prove fundamental dishonesty

News And Events||20/11/2017

Keoghs IT team celebrate double award win

News And Events||17/11/2017

Keoghs unveils first true AI insurance lawyer

News And Events||07/11/2017

Expansion continues for Keoghs with launch of Marine, Ports and Offshore team

News And Events||03/11/2017

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

News And Events||20/10/2017

Keoghs IT team recognised in prestigious awards

News And Events||19/10/2017

Disputed causation leaves claimants paying the price

News And Events||17/10/2017

Keoghs announce 20 promotions and four new appointments

News And Events||31/08/2017

The Meaning of “Accidental Damage”

Blogs||14/11/2017

Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?

Blogs||08/11/2017

The Discount Rate - Time to Draw the Line?

Blogs||25/10/2017

Out of your Control: The expanding limits of vicarious liability - Natasha Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council

Blogs||23/10/2017

Keoghs Launches Online Ogden Multiplier Calculator

Blogs||09/10/2017

A new way of life? Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)

Blogs||27/09/2017

Driver disqualification and the case for exceptional hardship

Blogs||25/09/2017

Health and Safety Executive FFI invoices – new panel, same challenges

Blogs||21/09/2017

Credit Hire Aware 12

AWARE||19/07/2017

Costs Aware Issue 3

AWARE||22/06/2017

Property Aware 5

AWARE||14/06/2017

Credit Hire Aware 11

AWARE||21/12/2016

Fraud Aware 5

AWARE||27/10/2016

Costs Aware 2

AWARE||24/10/2016

Disease Aware 8

AWARE||05/10/2016

Credit Hire Aware 10

AWARE||18/08/2016

Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.

Author

Keoghs

Keoghs client found not guilty in high profile trial

News And Events||14/02/2017

R v Ann Diggles – Preston Crown Court

Keoghs Head of Motor Crime, Neena Sharma, represented Ann Diggles in this high profile case relating to a road traffic collision on 7th July 2014.

The incident occurred when Mrs Diggles’ automatic vehicle went out of control and mounted a kerb, wedging itself between a parked car and the wall fully onto the pavement. At that moment a pedestrian emerged from a charity shop and was knocked down by the vehicle, unfortunately dying as a consequence.  Mrs Diggles was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving in the alternative with a “not guilty” plea entered on both charges.   

Background

Mrs Diggles was always adamant that her automatic Nissan Qashqai suffered from an electronic surge which caused her vehicle to move forward whilst the police and prosecution case was that she had pressed the accelerator rather than the brake.  

Prior to the incident she had parked on one side of the road using her disabled badge, before seeing  another parking space become available and deciding to move her vehicle so as not to cause an obstruction.  

Mrs Diggles explained that, despite setting off very slowly and putting her foot on the accelerator in a normal fashion, the vehicle just shot off.  She maintained that she then placed her foot on the brake but the vehicle did not respond.  The witness evidence from people at the scene described the collision as low speed but commented that the engine was revving quite loudly.  One witness said;

“The impact was slow but I then saw the Nissan almost forcing its way along the pavement between the parked car and the Tattoo studio…..The car seemed to be shaking from side to side but again speed was only slow.” 

Prosecution

The prosecution alleged that a “sudden acceleration surge” could not have occurred in the manner Mrs Diggles alleged and that she must have made a mistake and pressed the accelerator rather than the brake, thus causing the incident.  

The prosecution also called an Electrical Engineer and Nissan’s Deputy General Manager from Japan.  The Deputy General Manager said that such an event was “impossible” whilst the prosecution’s electrical engineer, Dr Brown, accepted in a joint statement with our expert that a vehicle with inherent electronic control elements and an electronic throttle can move of its own volition, yet he stated that it did not happen in this case!  

In addition, the police took the vehicle to a local Nissan garage for diagnostic testing which showed a “U1000” fault, however no one satisfactorily explained the importance or impact of this code.  The battery had been charged by the Nissan garage before the diagnostic testing was carried out and no one had tested the battery prior to this.    

Mr Nakamura from Nissan Japan did accept in evidence that certain transient dips in voltage would not necessarily be picked up by the ECU and would not necessarily generate a fault code

Defence

Keoghs’ expert, Dr Anderson, concluded that the poor state of the battery, low mileage the vehicle had been driven, number of stop/starts and the fact that the vehicle had been stationary for three weeks prior to the incident (due to Mrs Diggles having been on holiday), all contributed to a sudden acceleration, causing the vehicle to move forward of its own volition (a dip in the voltage at a certain level caused the engine to surge).  

Dr Anderson explained that the vehicle would have been like a “tank” and difficult to control.  He also stated that the vehicle would not have responded to any braking immediately.  

During the course of the trial several witnesses contacted the court, counsel’s chambers and Keoghs to say that they had experienced a similar incident and wished to assist in order to see justice being done.

After taking statements Keoghs called two witnesses to give evidence on behalf of the defence

Result

After deliberating for 2 hours and 39 minutes the jury returned unanimous verdicts of “not guilty”.

The judge also recommended the two witnesses for certificates of commendation.

Comment

Following the result Neena Sharma commented;

“While we are delighted with this result, which is the right outcome for our client, Mrs Diggles, it must not be forgotten that this is a tragic case for the family of the lady who sadly lost her life.  These cases are emotionally fraught for all concerned.

This was a difficult case from a technical perspective, involving complex electronic engineering evidence and a forensic analysis of the steps taken by the police and others during the investigation to test the vehicle following the accident.

This case highlights the importance of early vehicle inspections and preservation of the evidence in its original state which is paramount.  Prior to our expert’s involvement the vehicle had undergone diagnostic testing but crucially, despite our client’s initial account immediately after the incident,  the police had not addressed their mind to any other possible alternative explanation.”


Alistair MacDonald QC (New Park Court Chambers) said;

 “At first sight, this case was a difficult one with an elderly lady allegedly having mistaken the accelerator for the brake.  A senior engineer from Nissan and an electronic engineer gave expert evidence for the Crown.  
 
A rebalancing of the focus on the credibility of the defendant together with the deployment of defence specialist engineering evidence and the accounts of other witnesses who had suffered uncommanded engine surges was enough to persuade the jury that the prosecution was unable to prove pedal error and the acquittal of Mrs Diggles on all charges.”