Dangerous Driving: Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

Debate between James Wild and Sarah Dyke

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are all familiar with the annual Christmas drink-driving campaigns and other campaigns throughout the year, and I think Norfolk Constabulary has also done some drug-testing campaigns. I encourage other police forces to do the same, because it is not just about alcohol; it is also about drugs, as in this case.

The primary purpose of tonight’s debate is to highlight the serious issues raised by this case with sentencing and the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as well as to propose some changes to the criminal justice system. In the Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, Parliament legislated to increase the maximum sentence for this offence from 14 years to life imprisonment. We did that to reflect the devastation that such crimes inflict. As Summer wrote in a petition calling for change in our criminal justice system:

“My family were given a life sentence the day that man killed my loved ones. A life sentence that I will never be released from. On 15th January, he killed our future lives, thoughts and hopes—as we have none without them.”

Summer and her family cannot understand why the life sentence they have been dealt has not been imposed on this offender. The petition that Summer organised has been signed by over 13,000 people, and the family are working alongside other families and charities such as RoadPeace, with its “Fix our Broken Justice System” campaign, to try to make a difference.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Somerton and Frome, we were recently shocked by the tragic deaths of two young sisters, Liberty and Madison, who were killed as they drove on the A361 bypass near Frome. They were killed because speed limits were ignored, on a road that has seen many traffic accidents in recent years. Does he agree that our road traffic laws are failing, and that the victims of criminal driving and their families need confidence that our legal system will deliver justice?

[James Wild]

We increased the maximum sentence for this crime to life imprisonment precisely to try to address those concerns. I now want to come to whether the system is actually working, in the sense that courts are imposing the sentences that this Parliament has legislated for.

The judge classed this as a level 1 case—the most serious—owing to a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving. In her sentencing remarks, she highlighted the following aggravating factors: three people were killed; there was greatly excessive speed; the driver knew he was deprived of sufficient sleep; he had consumed drugs above the legal limit—there was a cocktail of drugs in his system; he had previous convictions for motoring offences—driving while disqualified, driving with excess alcohol and two counts of driving with no insurance; and he was on police bail for a driving offence at the time and in breach of curfew conditions. There were six aggravating factors, yet the judge went on to state that a sentence after a trial would have been 14 years, when the maximum sentence legislated for by this Parliament is life imprisonment.

The simple question that many people have is: why? A particular concern in this case is the timeliness of sentencing guidelines. From June 2022, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was increased to life imprisonment, as I have mentioned, yet it was not until 1 July 2023 that new sentencing guidelines took effect. How and why can there be such a gap? As it happens, new guidelines were published on 15 June 2023, before the judge passed her sentence, but they were not in effect. They increased the starting point for a level 1 offence from eight years in custody to 12 years, with a range of eight to 18 years.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) personally argued, in the Luis Balcazar Soto case in the Court of Appeal in 2022, that pending the new sentencing guidelines, judges should increase sentences imposed for the most serious such offences to reflect the increase in the maximum sentence legislated for by this House. Having read the judgment carefully and the starting point selected, I do not consider that that is what happened in this case, when three people were killed.

My constituents also questioned the approach to concurrent sentences. The totality guidelines state that where more than one death is caused and they are charged in separate counts, as happened in this case, sentences reflecting the overall criminality would be appropriate, and to ensure that sentences are “just and proportionate”. Again, it is difficult to accept that that happened in this case, where a single concurrent sentence was given.

The sentence was referred to the Attorney General on behalf of the family. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, acting on her behalf, declined to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. In the response to the family, he stated that the judge characterised the offence accurately and identified the correct starting point. The question the family have is this: what further aggravating factors would justify a higher sentence and a referral?

A particular source of anger, and the reason the family lack confidence in the review, is that the letter explaining why the sentence would not be referred talks about the judge as a he, when in fact the judge was a she. It is perhaps not surprising that, as a result, my constituents, who suffered this very traumatic experience, are concerned that their case was not looked at properly. Can my hon. and learned Friend assure my constituents that it was carefully considered, and tell them whether experienced King’s Counsel provided advice on the case, having reviewed the judgment? My constituents have a specific request for my hon. and learned Friend. Will he agree to meet me and the family to explain those reasons directly to them in more detail?

Sadly, this case is not unique and RoadPeace has highlighted the cases of four families, including Summer’s, and the fact that no one has yet received a life sentence for this crime. As well as the contributions this evening, a number of other hon. and right hon. Members approached me in the House today, once it was known that this debate was taking place, to highlight similar cases in their constituencies where inadequate sentences were imposed.

Nothing will bring back Lisa Carter, Paul Carter or Jade Mace, but their families are committed to helping make changes to prevent other families from experiencing the nightmare that they have. They have identified four principal areas where action is needed to put the rights of victims and their bereaved families ahead of offenders.

First, the family want a thorough review of all the evidence related to this case, as, as I have explained, they do not consider it was properly reviewed. To that end, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will agree to meet the family to explain in greater detail how the case was considered and how the unduly lenient sentence test is applied.

Secondly, the family call for longer sentences. Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the most serious cases. Given that, it is essential that the appropriateness of the sentencing guidelines for this offence are reviewed. How can it be right that someone who kills three people in such terrible circumstances could be out of prison in just seven and a half years? That is two and a half years each for the lives of Lisa, Paul and Jade. The guidelines need to be revised in line with Parliament’s intent to ensure that longer sentences are imposed. If the unduly lenient scheme threshold is set too cautiously, it should also be looked at to help inspire public confidence.

Thirdly, the bail system should be improved. As I mentioned, at the time of the crash, the offender was on bail for a driving offence and subject to a curfew, but tagging is not available for police bail, so when he broke the curfew, no one knew. If he had been tagged, it is possible that this appalling crime may have been prevented. One of the changes my constituents and all those who signed the petition want to see is curfews controlled—for example, with a tag—and stricter sanctions for failure to comply with bail conditions. This is a simple, common-sense reform to make our bail system more robust, and I hope the Government will take it forward.

Fourthly, to ordinary people it is offensive that multiple lives can be taken but concurrent rather than consecutive sentences imposed. Again, consideration should be given for the totality sentencing guidelines to be reviewed for offenders convicted of multiple deaths simultaneously, so that there is a shift towards imposing consecutive sentences.

Finally, thousands of people have signed another petition supporting a lifetime driving ban for people who are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. In this case, a ban for a period of eight years was considered appropriate, extended to 15 years to take account of the time that the offender will be in prison. The courts have the powers to impose lifetime bans, and RoadPeace is campaigning for them to be applied. The Government should consider whether it should become a mandatory element in some cases, because driving is a privilege and not a right.

I recognise that a number of the issues I have raised fall to other Ministers and other Departments, and I seek the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend in ensuring that the points I have made are followed up after the debate, in writing and also through meetings. There is an opportunity—through the criminal justice and sentencing Bills announced in the King’s Speech, and through the power of the Lord Chancellor to request reviews of sentencing guidelines—to ensure that tougher sentences are imposed and served. That is what our constituents want, and what they expect.

For this family the nightmare will not end, but by making changes we can try to prevent others from suffering it. This debate is part of the process of putting forward those changes.