header-logo header-logo

11 January 2007
Issue: 7255 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Road traffic

R v Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 3186, [2006] EWCA Crim 3186

The relevant starting points identified in R v Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996, [2003] 3 All ER 40 (causing death by dangerous driving) should be reassessed as follows:

(i) no aggravating circumstances—12 months to two years’ imprisonment;
(ii) intermediate culpability—two to four and a half years’ imprisonment;
(iii) higher culpability—four and a half to seven years’ imprisonment; and
(iv) most serious culpability—seven to 14 years’ imprisonment. 

Where the driver has been drinking, if the level of impairment is only just in
excess of the permitted limit, and the driving is otherwise careless rather than dangerous, the consumption of alcohol provides the most significant aggravating element of the offence. If there are no others, it will normally fall within the category of offences of causing death by dangerous driving which lack any additional aggravating features.

As the consumption of alcohol increases, so does the relative culpability, and by the time the consumption is at or about double the legal limit, the case would fall within the intermediate category. At higher levels than this, the result will be dangerous driving of a kind which will take the case into the categories of higher culpability and then most serious culpability. It is a specific mitigating feature that defendants behaved responsibly, and took positive action to assist at the scene but it is not a mitigating feature that they merely waited or remained at the scene.

Issue: 7255 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll