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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll