Bail (Dangerous Drivers)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

19:01

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): On new year’s eve, 31 December 2010, as people in Otley and all over the country were celebrating, my constituent James Peter Still, known as Jamie to his family and friends, was doing what 16-year-olds were doing up and down the country. He was out enjoying the evening with friends. Tragically, at around 9 pm, Jamie was hit by a drunk and speeding motorist, who lost control of his vehicle and veered on to the pavement.

Jamie was assisted by people at the scene, including regulars from the White Swan and Manor House pubs. He was rushed to hospital but died soon afterwards. His mother, who had rushed to the scene, was at his bedside. No other members of the family were able to get there in time to see him. His death left a family devastated and a community and town in shock.

The driver had been out drinking. His blood-alcohol content was estimated at about twice the drink-drive limit. He had been travelling at speeds estimated at 50 mph in a 30 mph zone in the middle of the town. Shortly before the accident he was reportedly performing handbrake turns in the car park of a nearby garden centre. In addition, he had been using his mobile phone, and in the half hour before the crash had received no fewer than 12 calls from his girlfriend. She was pleading with him to stop driving. It was not until 24 May 2011 that the driver was charged with causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol, and pleaded guilty to those charges. He was finally convicted at Leeds Crown court on 8 September 2011. He was sent to jail for four years and disqualified from driving for five years.

The point of my debate and the campaign is that the driver who killed Jamie Still on new year’s eve was allowed to—and indeed did—carry on driving until his sentence, eight months later in September. The man who had killed someone by driving dangerously was allowed on the roads for a further eight months. Usually, an individual’s licence is suspended soon after a drink-driving offence, because prosecution is swift, but unfortunately, in this case, as the driver had actually killed someone, the prosecution took much longer, and the licence is not suspended until conviction. That is, in effect, a loophole that allows many people charged with death by dangerous or careless driving to continue to drive, long after they are arrested, and even charged, up until their conviction and sentencing; that can, as this case has shown, be many months later.

I was pleased to meet the Minister, along with Jamie’s mother, Karen, his sister, Rebecca and his grandfather, Peter. I thank the Minister for meeting the family to hear their concerns, and I appreciate that he is looking into the matter. I was also very pleased to receive a response on the issue from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. He said:

“He raises a very important point about what happens in cases such as these and what one can and cannot do with bail conditions. I will certainly go away and look at that. It may well be that this is something that we can consider alongside the recommendations that we are considering about drug-related driving. There is more work for the Government to do in this area, and I will certainly listen to my hon. Friend’s and his constituents’ concerns.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 822.]

That was very welcome news.

Let me make it clear that this is not an isolated case. The campaign group, RoadPeace, in its guide for bereaved families in precisely this situation, says:

“Bail can be conditional or unconditional…Drivers charged with causing a death are not immediately banned from driving. Driving bans are imposed only if the defendant is believed to be at risk of reoffending, but this is rarely the case. If a driver has a driving ban as part of his bail condition and they are caught driving, they can be put in jail”,

but

“Insufficient priority is given to keeping dangerous drivers off the road. Driving bans are short and can overlap with custodial sentences. It is a sad indictment of our society that we will imprison drivers before we will confiscate their vehicles and that we will crush vehicles for being driven without insurance but not for being driven”

in these cases.

It is true that a driving ban can be handed out following a guilty plea, or prior to sentencing reports, but that is at the discretion of the trial judge, and is simply not being applied in many cases. If someone is accused of drink-driving but has caused no harm, they will lose their licence quickly, yet if a drink-driver has killed another human being, they can, and often do, hold on to their licence and continue to drive. We can only imagine the distress that Jamie’s mother, Karen, and his sister, Rebecca, had to face as a result of this man continuing to drive in the weapon with which he killed their loved one. Indeed, Karen says:

“why does the law allow offenders such as McRae to continue performing the activities that led to someone’s death?”

Recently, Humberside police banned two drivers who were caught being too drunk to drive following a night of watching Euro 2012. Those two men had their licences suspended immediately, yet in the case that I am raising, that is not happening, although there is a charge of death by careless or dangerous driving.

The family and I are calling on the Government to look into making the suspension of driving licences in such fatal cases no longer discretionary, but mandatory. Currently, driving bans are imposed only if the defendant is believed to be at risk of reoffending, or a risk to the public, but that is rarely believed to be the case, and it misses the point about the distress that Jamie’s family had to endure as a result of the driver continuing to drive. It is surely possible to make a driving ban a condition of bail in all cases where an offender is charged with death by dangerous or careless driving.

At the heart of the campaign is Jamie’s sister, Rebecca. Unbeknown even to her own mother, she decided, off her own bat, even though she was grieving, to start an e-petition calling for those who kill as a result of dangerous driving to have their licences suspended as a condition of bail. It has now received more than 12,000 signatures. We believe that that is possible, and I hope sincerely that the Minister will look into it.

It is possible to apply the measure to people who have been drink-driving and have tested more than twice over the legal limit. The Institute of Alcohol Studies has suggested that

“those at least twice over the limit or…have previous convictions should have their licence withdrawn as a condition of bail. The Government should be prepared to effect this by primary legislation and treat the bail condition as an interim disqualification.”

To make the position clear, we are talking about suspension from the moment of charge until trial. If someone is found to be innocent, as applies to any bail condition, their driving licence would be reinstated immediately, so there would be no implication that this is in any way a suggestion of guilt.

Jamie’s family believe that driving bans for such crimes are far too short and should not overlap custodial sentences. I urge the Minister to look at that because, as he knows, driving bans do overlap custodial sentences, which in many cases nullifies the driving ban. In this awful case, the driving ban was set at five years, but the custodial sentence was four years in jail, which means that if the driver served his full sentence—in reality he will not do so—his driving ban would last only a year after release. It is simply not acceptable that someone who has caused a death as a result of dangerous or careless driving and has behaved recklessly and criminally should be allowed back on the road after being out in society for just one year. The family feel aggrieved, as they have told the Minister, and believe that the five-year sentence handed down to the perpetrator is not enough, given that he knowingly took to the wheel of his car twice over the drink-drive limit.

I am pleased that this is on the agenda. The family are grateful, and they feel that Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, have listened to their campaign on what appears to be a loophole that could be closed fairly easily. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this forward, echoing the Prime Minister’s comment that he will look at that alongside tightening the drug-driving laws—something else that I support. I have pledged to the family that I will carry on campaigning alongside Rebecca, Karen and Peter, Jamie’s grandfather. It is astonishing that, despite their devastating loss, which can never be rectified—a hole that can never be filled—they still want to do something at least to prevent some of the pain and trauma from affecting other families. I will carry on campaigning with them until we have secured changes to achieve that. I thank the Minister for his interest, and I hope that he will work with me and the family to see what we can do to address some of these issues.

00:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for his tenacity on behalf of his constituents and for securing this debate on an issue that he has already raised with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I would like to begin by expressing once again our sympathy to the family of Jamie Still, who was taken so early from them and in such tragic circumstances. As my hon. Friend reminded us, in April, he and I met Karen Strong, Jamie’s mother, as well as Jamie’s grandfather, Peter Strong, and his sister, Rebecca. We were able to discuss their concerns about the case in some detail. The Prime Minister has continued to take a personal interest in the case.

Something that contributed in no small measure to the family’s distress in this case is the time that elapsed between the incident and the suspect being charged, which was no less than five months. Although it is essential in any case, let alone one with such tragic circumstances, that the right charge is brought against the suspect, it is right that we should seek to do better, and we are. We have just published our proposals to reform the criminal justice system to deliver swift and sure justice. A swifter outcome in this case would have been preferable for all parties.

To explain the time taken in this case, I should point out that it is a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system that due process is followed, so even when some evidence appears to be very strong, charging decisions cannot be made under the full code test in the code for Crown prosecutors until all the relevant circumstances have been investigated by the police and all relevant evidence has been reviewed by a prosecutor. The investigation and gathering of evidence can sometimes be a lengthy process, and it can take a considerable time from when an offence is committed to when a charging decision is made. The importance attached to such serious cases is reflected by the fact that the final decision on the most appropriate charge in this case was taken at one of the highest levels of the Crown Prosecution Service.

However, after the decision to charge was made, it took another three months before the defendant was convicted and sentenced after he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. This offence is an indictable-only one; in other words, it must be tried in the Crown court. In such cases, defendants cannot plead until they reach the Crown court. Until very recently, there was no formal opportunity for a defendant in such a case who wished to plead guilty to let the magistrates know. The criminal procedure rules have now been changed, with the result that an early appearance can be arranged in the Crown court when a defendant has signalled that he intends to plead guilty. Even when the defendant has not done so, it may be that the case could be identified by the CPS as one in which a guilty plea is likely and thus listed for an early Crown court hearing. Arrangements enabling this to happen—the so-called early guilty plea system—have been piloted in Liverpool, Bristol, Winchester and Reading, and are now being adopted in many more Crown court centres. Such initiatives complement the principles of swift and sure justice that underlie the recent White Paper on criminal justice system reform. However, my hon. Friend has made clear the pain of the eight months of seeing Max McRae, the guilty drunken driver, still driving, and I hope that the change that I have outlined might address that to some degree.

The offender in this case pleaded guilty and expressed remorse to the court. A guilty plea is welcome, not only because it enables cases to be resolved more quickly but because it may indicate willingness on the part of offenders to face up to what they have done. Restorative justice can go further in helping offenders to confront the consequences of their actions and their impact on others. I am convinced that in the right circumstances a restorative process can be highly beneficial, but it can only meaningfully take place when offenders admit responsibility and they and the victims have been assessed as fully able and willing to engage in it.

The important thing about restorative justice is that it makes the victims central to the justice process. Jamie’s relatives expressed understandable upset to me that McRae offered remorse to the court but not to them. It is not clear what advice he received about whether such an expression would have been welcome or whether Jamie’s relatives had been counselled as to what they could expect in a proper restorative justice process. The only observation that I would make is that in over two years of meeting prisoners, this group of offenders tends to stand out as the most remorseful and the most conscious of the appalling and irreparable hurt they have caused. This case further convinces me of the need to improve our capacity for victims to have access to properly mediated restorative justice, and we are actively considering this in our policy development on victims and witnesses.

The central issue for my hon. Friend is that the offender was permitted to continue driving while he was under investigation and awaiting trial. He will know that it is open to the police and the courts to require as a condition of bail, alongside any other conditions that are considered necessary, that a suspect or defendant must not drive while on bail. While a person is being investigated for an offence, the question of bail is an operational matter for the police. Once a suspect has been charged with an offence and appears in court, the question of bail becomes one for the court. If there are substantial grounds for believing that a suspect, if released on bail, will commit further offences, fail to surrender to bail, or interfere with witnesses, the police or the court may grant bail with one or more conditions attached. A condition that would prohibit a suspect from driving is an option if it is thought necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

The police and the courts have to make difficult decisions, balancing the need to protect the rights of individuals who are suspected of a crime against the need to protect victims of crime and all other members of the public. It cannot be the purpose of any bail condition to anticipate the punishment that a defendant might receive if he were convicted of the offence with which he has been charged, or that a suspect might receive if he were charged and convicted. The purpose of bail conditions is simply to protect the public from the consequences of further offending, or to secure the smooth running of justice by ensuring that the defendant turns up at a police station or in court.

That is why, although it may be likely or even inevitable that a person who has been charged with certain motoring offences will be banned from driving if he or she is convicted, it does not follow that a driving ban should be imposed as a condition of bail. It is a question of risk. The difficult task facing the court, with the assistance of the Crown Prosecution Service, is to assess that risk.

I recognise that there are cases where the nature of the offence suggests that a risk exists. It is arguable—and I have some sympathy with this view—that the incident in which Jamie Still was killed on that new year’s eve is such an example. An innocent young man died as a result of an incident that combined alleged careless driving and driving with significantly more than the permitted level of alcohol. It is arguable that a no-drive condition is, on the face of it, suitable in such circumstances. However, it is the duty of the court to carry out the risk assessment. The Crown Prosecution Service has a vital role to play in the process, because the prosecutor may make representations in relation to the grant of bail following Jamie’s case.

Earlier this year, all prosecutors were reminded of the need for a careful approach on the question of whether to oppose bail in cases of bad driving that has resulted in death. The Director of Public Prosecutions is in the process of reviewing the Crown Prosecution Service’s policy on bad driving cases in general. That includes a review of the approach taken by prosecutors on the question of bail in such cases, especially where the incident results in the death of a victim. I anticipate that, with regard to fatal collisions, the guidance will emphasise the appropriateness of a no-drive bail condition when the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that if the defendant is released on bail, he will present a danger to other road users by committing further driving offences.

There will be a public consultation on the review later in the year. That will be an opportunity for the public in general, Jamie Still’s family, my hon. Friend and any other family who have suffered a similar tragedy to make their views known. I will keep my hon. Friend informed about the progress on this matter.

Essentially, it has to remain the position that every case will be treated on its merits. It is right that, where necessary, Parliament will provide statutory requirements for courts to follow and that organisations will provide guidelines on how to approach cases to make sure that there is consistency in standards. We ensure that legislation upholds the rights and needs of everyone who is affected by the criminal justice system in this country and we allow the professionals to apply the requirements correctly in each and every case.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate and on raising this tragic case. I commend him for the tenacious way in which he campaigns on behalf of his constituents. I know that he will await the outcome of the review by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as we all will. Changes have already been made in the light of the tragedy that overtook Jamie Still and I anticipate that there will be further changes following the review.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the officials of the House an enjoyable and agreeable recess as we enjoy the success of our Olympic athletes.

Question put and agreed to.

19:23

House adjourned.