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Draft guidance on: causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by careless driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and causing death by driving unlicensed,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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll