“This offence causes particular difficulty for sentencers. By definition, it is one which always gives rise to extremely serious harm: the death of at least one victim (and in some cases serious injury to others). Understandably this often leads to calls from victims’ families, and from the wider community, for tough sentencing. On the other hand, an offender sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving did not intend to cause death or serious injury, even in the extreme case where he or she deliberately drove for a prolonged period with no regard for the safety of others. The Panel believes that new guidelines will help sentencers to strike an appropriate balance between the level of culpability of the offender and the magnitude of the harm resulting from the offence. The Panel drew up its initial proposals on the basis that the outcome of an offence, including the number of people killed, was relevant to the sentence, but that the primary consideration must always be the culpability of the offender. That was supported by the majority of respondents to our consultation paper, and it remains our view. Two of the detailed points in the Panel’s Advice deserve particular mention. One is the significance of multiple deaths. Although the number of people killed is often a matter of chance, there are (as some of our consultees pointed out to us) cases where the offender has knowingly put more than one person at risk, or where the occurrence of multiple deaths was reasonably foreseeable. In such cases, we recommend that the occurrence of more than one death should be treated as a more seriously aggravating factor. The second point is the inclusion of ‘driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest’ in the list of factors that would aggravate the seriousness of an offence. Under previous sentencing guidelines, ‘briefly dozing at the wheel’ was seen as an example of a ‘momentary dangerous error of judgment’, indicating a less serious offence. The Panel’s view (again supported by consultees) is that falling asleep is more likely to aggravate than mitigate the seriousness of an offence, because drivers do not normally fall asleep without warning, and the proper course of action for a motorist who feels drowsy is to stop driving and rest.”
“1.1 Road accidents cause immense human suffering. Every year, around 3,500 people are killed on Britain’s roads and 40,000 are seriously injured. In total, there are over 300,000 road casualties, in nearly 240,000 accidents, and about fifteen times that number of non-injury incidents. This represents a serious economic burden; the direct cost of road accidents involving deaths or injuries is thought to be in the region of£3 billion a year. 1.2 Nevertheless, Britain has had -relatively speaking -remarkable success in reducing road casualties. And this is despite the vast growth in traffic since the beginning of the last century. In 1930 there were only 2.3 million motor vehicles in Great Britain, but over 7,000 people were killed in road accidents. Today, there are over 27 million vehicles on our roads but far fewer road deaths. 1.3 In 1987 a target was set to reduce road casualties by one-third by 2000 compared with the average for 1981-85. We have more than achieved this target for reducing deaths and serious injuries. Road deaths have fallen by 39% and serious injuries by 45% and we are now one of the safest countries in Europe and indeed the world. However, there has not been any such steep decline in the number of accidents, nor in the number of slight injuries, although improvements in vehicle design have helped to reduce the severity of injuries to car occupants.”
“a) The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and b) It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
“13. The key problem for a sentencer dealing with this offence is the tension between the outcome of the offence (which is inevitably the death of at least one victim) and the degree of the offender’s culpability. The Panel’s provisional view, that the offender’s culpability should be the dominant component in the sentencing exercise but that the outcome of the offence should have some effect, was strongly endorsed by the majority of respondents to the consultation paper. The Panel understands the view of the minority, that causing death is invariably a very serious crime, but reaffirms its initial view that culpability must be the dominant factor when the offence involves no intention to kill or injure.”
“32. When the standard of the offenders’ driving is more highly dangerous (as would be indicated, for example, by the presence of one or two of factors (a) to (i) the Panel suggests that the appropriate starting point would be a custodial sentence within the range from two to five years. The exact level of sentence would be determined by the dangerousness of the driving and by the presence or absence of other aggravating or mitigating factors.”
“34. The Panel suggests that custodial sentences over five years should be reserved for cases involving an extremely high level of culpability on the offender’s part. This might be indicated by the presence of three or more of aggravating factors (a) to (i), although an exceptionally bad example of a single aggravating feature could be sufficient to place an offence in this category. A sentence close to the maximum would be appropriate in a case displaying a large number of these features, or where there were other aggravating factors.”
“This was a case where there was no prolonged course of bad driving over and above that which is inevitably present in a case of this kind, but that any driving with excess alcohol is serious bad driving. If you drive with excess alcohol late at night, one of the possibilities is that it will increase the chances that you will fall asleep at the wheel. Those who fall asleep at the wheel, whether from excess alcohol or otherwise represent an enormous danger to other road users. Accordingly it is incumbent upon all to ensure they do not place themselves in a position where this is likely to happen.”
“While those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving are likely to regard disqualification as an onerous part of the punishment for the offence, the main purpose of disqualification is forward-looking and preventative, rather than backward-looking and punitive. A driving ban is designed to protect road users in the future from an offender who, through his conduct on this occasion, and perhaps other occasions, has shown himself to be a real risk on the roads. In general, the Panel suggests, the risk represented by the offender is reflected in the level of culpability which attaches to his driving, so that matters relevant to fixing the length of the driving disqualification for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving will be much the same as those appearing in the list of aggravating factors for the offence itself. Shorter bans of two years or so will be appropriate where the offender had a good driving record before the offence and where the offence resulted from a momentary error of judgment. Longer bans, between 3 and 5 years, will be appropriate where, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender’s record, it is clear that the offender tends to disregard the rules of the road, or to drive carelessly or inappropriately. Bans between 5 and 10 years may be used where the offence itself, and the offender’s record, show that he represents a real and continuing danger to other road users. Disqualification for life is a highly exceptional course, but may be appropriate in a case where the danger represented by the offender is an extreme and indefinite one. Noble (see paragraphs 36-37 above) was described by the Court of Appeal as ‘one of those rare cases’ where disqualification for life was necessary in order to protect the public.”
“Yeh, well, this is your fault. You know that don’t’ you? Do you know that? No? [pause]. Go on, give it loads. Go on, you can do it. Go on. Yeh, anyway.”