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

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