Is a life Sentence for causing death by dangerous driving appropriate?

Govt introduces life sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink/drugs?

Having received royal assent in May this year, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSC) from the 28^th June 2022 , under S87, the maximum sentence for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and  death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink/drugs increases from 14 years imprisonment to life imprisonment.

Where a life sentence is imposed, the defendant is given a number of years they must spend in prison after which they will be able to apply for parole. The previous maximum sentence for both offences is 14 years.

We ask whether this is a welcome change, or whether drivers now face disproportionate penalties?

Why has the new legislation come into force?

There have been increasingly louder calls from organisations such as THINK¹ and BRAKE² for tougher penalties where death has been caused by dangerous driving or those who cause death whilst driving under the influence of drink or drugs. In 2015, 122 people were sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving. In 2019, that figure rose to 174. A 2016 consultation found that 70% of respondents agreed that the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased to life imprisonment³.

The proposal for the change in law was first announced in 2017 as a result of this consultation, and forms part of the government’s pledge to consider the sentencing powers the courts have at their disposal when dealing with the most serious driving offences.

Is it proportionate?

It is not just the custodial term that has increased, the driving disqualifications have become more punitive.

If there is a previous related conviction within the 10 years immediately prior to the commission of the new offence, the period of disqualification increases from what was 3 years now to 6.

Is the new sentencing regime fair? Let’s first look at the constituent elements of the offence for causing death by dangerous driving:

1. Section 2A(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that a person is driving dangerously if:

• the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; and
• it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

2. The dangerous driving must have caused the death, there being more than a slight or trifling link to the fatality[1].

Note: There is no condition for the defendant to have intended the death for a court to convict. What does this tell us? That there is a significantly lower threshold of culpability a defendant must meet before being imposed with the same sentence a court could impose for offences carrying similar penalties.

A comparison with murder may be illustrative. Its definition is as follows:

“the unlawful killing of any human being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought”

Malice aforethought is the mens rea of murder, i.e., the intent element. This element is satisfied when there is either;

• an intention to kill; or
• an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

If a jury find that death or grievous bodily harm was a natural and probable consequence of the killer’s actions, they may, but do not have to, infer that death was either intended or foreseen. The court in Hyam v DPP ⁴upheld a conviction for murder where foresight had been equated with a high probability of intent.

There is a clear distinction here between the constituent elements of murder and causing death by dangerous driving.  A high probability of intent to cause death places a much higher burden of proof on the prosecution in murder cases yet attracts an (albeit mandatory) life sentence, as is now the maximum for causing death by dangerous driving. It is worthy of note that dangerous driving can be “obvious” to a competent driver even if it was obvious “at a glance”4

So arguably we now have a sentencing framework where offenders who have suffered a momentary lapse of concentration behind the wheel, perhaps making the wrong decision at a split-second’s notice, can be equated in terms of sentence to those who have been held to have had a high probability of intending someone’s death.

A second comparison, this time with involuntary manslaughter, may provide an answer. Involuntary manslaughter refers to the types of manslaughter where the accused lacks the necessary level of intent. There are two categories of offending that can amount to manslaughter:

• killing by an unlawful act likely to cause bodily harm; and
• killing grossly negligently.

Under the sentencing guidelines for unlawful act manslaughter, a life sentence can be imposed where:

• Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which involved an intention by the offender to cause harm falling just short of GBH.
• Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high risk of death or GBH which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender.
• Death was caused in the course of committing or escaping from a serious offence in which the offender played more than a minor role.

Arguably, the offence of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs could include these characteristics and where it does the offender is likely to be facing a life sentence. However, currently, the sentencing guidelines places the offender in the highest level of sentencing (previously 14 years imprisonment) if there was “a deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others” which on the face of it is a lower threshold than the mens rea (intent) than manslaughter.

Whilst we await the amended sentencing guidelines will courts impose a life sentence purely on the current highest level of culpability? We would suggest not and that each case will be judged on its merits.  Only the most serious cases will attract a life sentence where it is obvious to a reasonable man that a high risk of death or GBH was apparent.  No doubt the Supreme Court will deal with a number of appeals in order to establish what is a fair sentence and when a life sentence should be imposed.

If you are facing charges for either of these offences or any serious motoring offence we would advise that you call us now for FREE initial advice.

https://roadtrafficdefencelawyers.co.uk/death-by-dangerous-driving/

Phone: 01270 509496

Contact us : https://roadtrafficdefencelawyers.co.uk/contact-us/

¹THINK https://www.think.gov.uk/

²BRAKE https://www.brake.org.uk/

³ Govt response to consultation for motoring offence causing death or serious injury https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/651879/consultation-response-on-driving-offences.pdf