header-logo header-logo

Road traffic

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

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

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll