header-logo header-logo

Sentencing levels proposed for aggravated car theft

21 February 2024
Issue: 8060 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Draft sentencing guidelines have been published for motoring offences committed while joy-riding or behind the wheel of a stolen car

The Sentencing Council issued six draft guidelines this week, including four aggravated vehicle taking offences, which are covered by the Theft Act 1968, covering situations in which offenders driving a stolen vehicle or a vehicle taken without permission go on to drive dangerously or cause death, injury or damage to property.

The proposed draft would set a guideline for the first time for sentencing the offence in the Crown Court and replace the current magistrates’ court guidelines, which apply a maximum of two years’ custody for dangerous driving or 14 years if death results. The Crown Court heard the majority (76%) of around 250 adult offenders sentenced in 2022 for aggravated vehicle taking involving dangerous driving.

The draft guideline sets out harm, culpability and aggravating factors—such as vehicle taken as part of a burglary, damage done to an emergency vehicle, failure to stop, or having a child present in the car—as well as sentence levels. It proposes up to two years in prison, with a starting point of one year six months for offences causing the most serious harm, and low-level community orders for the least serious.

Where less than £5,000 damage is caused, the offence will be summary-only with a maximum penalty of six months in prison.

Where the offence causes death, the proposed minimum penalty is 12 months and maximum 14 years’ custody. In this situation, however, the suspected offender is usually charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Sentencing Council member Judge Simon Drew KC said: ‘Drivers who commit motoring offences that result in death, injury or damage to property in vehicles they do not have permission to drive, can cause anguish and inconvenience both to the vehicle owner and to victims affected by their driving.’

The Council issued a further two draft guidelines this week, on vehicle registration fraud such as forging, altering or fraudulently using number plates, and an overarching guideline for driver disqualification, including principles to follow when imposing a disqualification.

Respond to the consultation by 22 May.

Issue: 8060 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll