header-logo header-logo

17 January 2008
Issue: 7304 / Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-detail

Drivers' sentencing guidelines "problematic"

News

Guidelines for sentencers dealing with driving offences resulting in death, released for consultation by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, have drawn mixed reactions.

The council’s consultation guidelines cover four offences, including, most controversially, the recommendation that those who cause death by careless driving should serve up to three years in prison. In cases involving “momentary inattention” and no aggravating factors, offenders should receive a community sentence.

Mio Sylvester, a partner at motoringlawyers.com, says although making careless driving an imprisonable offence satisfies public demand for serious punishment where death occurs, it’s problematic.
“The new sentencing powers that a driver can be imprisoned for making human mistakes without moral culpability is a departure that is likely to result in some difficult and unfair sentencing cases.”
“Notwithstanding the recommendation of community penalties which, arguably, strike the right sentencing balance, magistrates and judges are likely to be hard pressed by the Crown Prosecution Service, grieving relatives and tabloid journalists and the temptation will be to take a hard line unless and until the Court of Appeal rules otherwise,” Sylvester says.

Road safety charity Brake, however, is horrified that those who cause death by careless driving may only get a community sentence.

A spokeswoman says: “If these recommendations are adopted, there is a danger that the current situation—in which killer drivers too often walk free—will continue. Brake believes a custodial sentence is the correct starting point.”

Draft guidance on: causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and causing death by driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, was also issued by the council. For most offences, courts will need to assess how bad the driving was and the degree of danger created.

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau welcomes the recognition that people who cause death when driving without insurance justifies more than a fine.
A spokesman says: “These changes only deal with cases where death has ensued. Unfortunately for too long the crime of driving without insurance has not attracted the punishment that reflects the seriousness of the offence.”

Issue: 7304 / Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll