**Court Hears Driver Who Killed Dog Walker Was Not ‘Dangerous’ Behind the Wheel**
The actions of a driver responsible for the death of a pedestrian out walking his dog did not amount to ‘dangerous driving’, a jury at Cardiff Crown Court was told on Thursday. Daniel Boucher, aged 28, stands accused of causing the tragic death of 66-year-old David Chaplin, but has already pleaded guilty to a lesser charge—causing death by careless driving.
The incident unfolded on the evening of 18 April 2023, as Boucher left a window cleaning business on the Whitebeam industrial estate in Nelson, Caerphilly. At around 5.10pm, Boucher lost control of his red Peugeot 207 while attempting to navigate a left-hand bend. The car mounted the pavement, collided with a lamppost, and rolled onto its side before finally coming to rest on a grassy verge.
David Chaplin, who had chosen that route for his evening walk with his dog, was struck in the collision. Emergency services arrived to find Mr Chaplin unconscious but breathing, yet despite their determined efforts, he was pronounced dead at the scene. A post-mortem examination confirmed that multiple traumatic injuries caused his death.
Mr Boucher admitted in court to losing control of his vehicle, recognising that his careless driving directly resulted in Mr Chaplin’s untimely death. However, during his ongoing trial, he has consistently denied that his actions were so reckless as to constitute dangerous driving—a charge that carries much greater legal weight.
Defending Boucher, barrister Hashim Salmman outlined to the jury that while his client’s actions were undeniably careless and criminally liable, they did not fall to the standard required for dangerous driving. “He is not blameless,” Mr Salmman told the court, “but it’s important to recognise that he has already acknowledged his responsibility for this tragedy by pleading guilty to a serious offence.”
Salmman further expressed his sympathies for the family and friends of Mr Chaplin, acknowledging the profound and overwhelming grief they had endured. “It is a golden rule for the jury to keep an open mind,” the defence lawyer added, reminding the court that everyone involved has suffered as a result of the incident.
The trial also heard from Scott Williams, a colleague driving behind Boucher at the time of the crash. His testimony painted a vivid picture of the immediate aftermath, yet the defence questioned whether the emotional impact of witnessing the fatal collision could have influenced Williams’ recollection. Notably, Mr Williams was initially arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving himself—a charge that was eventually dropped.
Attention in the trial has largely centred on Boucher’s speed at the moment of the crash. Prosecutors allege that excessive speed was the key factor leading him to lose control of the car, though in a recorded police interview, Boucher insisted he was not using his mobile phone or otherwise distracted at the time of the incident.
Drawing the jury’s focus to the legal definitions at play, Mr Salmman argued that the line between careless and dangerous driving must be carefully considered. “Our position is that Mr Boucher’s actions, while gravely wrong, do not descend to the level of dangerousness in law, but have already been admitted as criminal through his plea,” he emphasised.
As proceedings continue at Cardiff Crown Court, the tragic impact of the collision remains at the fore. The legal distinction between careless and dangerous driving will be central to the jury’s decision as they weigh the facts and evidence laid before them. The outcome will no doubt have lasting consequences for all parties involved, most notably for the family who lost a beloved member far too soon.