R V Morgan [2007]

01 Jan 2018

Commercial and Regulatory

In the instant case, where the defendant (the train driver of a train which had passed a signal at danger (SPAD) and caused a fatal train crash) had pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter following the judge’s consideration of the legal test, in the light of authority which had subsequently clarified the law, there were factors which had not been considered at all in the course of the hearing before the judge; and there was material which suggested that there was something about the infrastructure of the junction which was causing mistakes (there having been five other instances of SPADs, one of which having occurred after the defendant’s conviction). Had the jury known that, it was at the very least impossible to to conclude that they would inevitably have convicted the defendant of manslaughter. The conviction was quashed. (Lexisweb.co.uk)

Gerard Forlin QC acted for Mr Morgan on the successful appeal, 18 years after the conviction, Gerard did not act below.