Kris Gledhill responds to comments on the legitimacy of the offence of causing death by careless driving
In his article, Crime of consequences?, 8 December 2006 (see 156 NLJ 7252, p 1876), retired District Judge (magistrates’ courts) Paul Firth argues an orthodox position that the consequences of a road traffic crash should not affect the criminal liability which attaches. This was the case when the only offence available was careless driving. But the judge then criticises the creation of the new offence of causing death by careless driving, setting out the view that the criminal law should not extend to penalise negligence.
There is, however, nothing wrong with the criminal law attaching greater significance to more serious consequences; nor is there any concern arising from liability for negligence. Both are features which are well-established in the law, and the new offence of causing death by careless driving should not be criticised on those grounds.
It is a long-established part of our criminal law that the effect of criminal conduct can turn that conduct into a more serious
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
