Trial judge did not err in explaining difference between dangerous driving and careless driving

McCarthy J: Criminal law – appeal against conviction and sentence – dangerous driving causing serious harm to a passenger – appellant was travelling too fast on overtaking lane when the lane came to an end – appellant could not slow down sufficiently to yield to an articulated lorry travelling in the single lane – appellant lost control of his vehicle and spun across the road onto the Cork to Mallow carriageway where traffic was travelling in the opposite direction – a consequence of which was the collisions between a number of vehicles – appellant alleged that the lorry driver had nudged him which caused him to lose control of his own vehicle – lorry driver adamant that no such collision had occurred – appellant contended that the configuration of the roadway was confusing – eye witness had given evidence that he did not see the lorry and the van collide – dashcam footage was available but was unable to be viewed by Gardaí as the file must have been corrupted – whether the learned trial judge erred in law in his explanation of the difference between dangerous driving and careless driving in answer to the jury’s question about same – whether the learned trial judge erred in fact and in law in failing to summarise the factual matters on the relevant issues – whether the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the appellant’s application for a direction in the case – the judge was plainly attempting to further explain the level of fault required to prove the charge – taken with the charge proper it is clear that what he said and how he acted served to highlight the high level of fault necessary to do so, as required by law - the judge’s understanding was an understanding legitimately open on the evidence – judge gave his understanding of the evidence in summary form and a summary is at most required – trial judge is not required to accept counsel’s version of the evidence – no submission in relation to the application and the nature of the application cannot be speculated nor the reasons for its refusal – appeal dismissed.