header-logo header-logo

Drivers' sentencing guidelines "problematic"

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

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Draft guidance on: causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and causing death by driving unlicensed,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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll