Dangerous Driving Offences (Sentences)

Crispin Blunt Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is extremely pleasurable to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, particularly as it means that you are in the Chair and not behind me on the Back Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing the debate and on his tenacity in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament. I congratulate him on whipping in, if I may put it that way, other hon. Members’ support with the notice he gave of his debate and on the generous way in which he gave them some time and some of my time. It is entirely his debate and it is all his time to give up to interventions. The hon. Gentleman made it clear in that message that he was going to end before 15 minutes of the debate was left, so I may be slightly over-prepared. However, I will attempt to get through the key messages I want to get across in responding to the debate.

As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the subject of dangerous driving is extremely serious, with potentially very grave consequences for innocent victims and their families. The Government are currently considering recent representations on the subject made by His Honour Judge Everett of Bolton Crown court following a particularly serious local case. They are also considering representations made by the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East not only in this debate, but in the speech he gave to his ten-minute rule Bill.

Road traffic cases present particular difficulties for the courts because it is not always the worst transgression by a driver that has the most tragic consequences. Sometimes the consequences of a collision may be entirely disproportionate to the culpability of the offender. A relatively minor misdemeanour by a driver may have very tragic consequences, whereas thoroughly reckless behaviour on the road may fortuitously result in little, if any, harm. The law therefore seeks to punish those who cause death or injury on the road in a way that is appropriate to the degree of blameworthiness of the driver.

Hon. Members will be aware that a range of offences relate to bad driving. Ultimately, it is for the prosecuting authorities to decide upon the appropriate charge in each individual case. The charges brought against an individual following a road traffic incident are dependent upon the Crown Prosecution Service’s assessment of the quality of the defendant’s driving both preceding and at the time of the impact. When considering the appropriate charge, it is the driving behaviour that is the deciding factor. There are charging standards agreed with the police for prosecuting road traffic offences.

Our current law provides a framework of offences to deal with bad driving at every level. Fatality holds a special place in that framework, which is why, where a death is caused by bad driving, particularly robust penalties are available. Where drivers cause death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, judges are able to sentence them to a maximum of 14 years in prison. Other measures include an unlimited fine and a minimum two-year driving disqualification. Where death is caused and there is sufficient evidence of gross negligence, drivers can be charged with the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Following the 2005 review of road traffic offences, since 2008 two new offences have been available to prosecutors: causing death by careless driving and causing death where a driver is unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalties for those are five years and two years respectively. Those offences attract a minimum disqualification period of one year, and can be punished by an unlimited fine. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, dangerous driving has a maximum penalty of two years custody. Careless driving, by comparison, has a maximum penalty of a fine.

As regards dangerous driving, within the maximum penalty set out in legislation, judges and magistrates have discretion to sentence based on the details of the individual case and the circumstances of the offender, taking into account sentencing guidelines. Moreover, the courts are obliged to endorse a driver’s licence and impose at least a 12-month driving disqualification, together with an extended re-test. Of course, if deemed necessary and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, there is no limit to the length of driving ban that a court can impose. The court may also impose a fine.

The magistrates courts’ sentencing guidelines provide some guidance on dangerous driving. The most serious examples of the offence—such as prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for the safety of others; incidents involving excessive speed or showing off, especially in built up areas, by a disqualified driver; and driving in such a fashion while being pursued by police—would be referred to the Crown court. Serious injuries are taken into account within the dangerous driving offence and, at the most severe end of that scale, we would expect judges to sentence close to or at the maximum penalty of two years custody.

I now want to set out some of the wider context for the debate. Generally, Britain has a good road safety record, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Deaths and serious injuries on the roads are a tragedy for all those who are affected. It is of course to be welcomed that road fatalities and casualties have continued to fall, but every such case is one too many. I will give the background with figures.

Since 1994, road casualties have been falling against a backdrop of increasing traffic and population. In 2009, there were a total of 222,146 reported casualties of all severities, 4% lower than in 2008; there were 2,222 deaths, 12% lower than in 2008; 24,690 were seriously injured, down 5%; and 195,234 were slightly injured, down 4%. The number of fatalities fell for almost all types of road user, with a fall of 16% for car occupants, 13% for pedestrians, 10% for pedal cyclists and 4% for motorcyclists.

If we compare not just one year, but the average trend over 15 years between 1994-98 and 2009, the number killed was 38% lower, and the number of those killed or seriously injured was 44% lower. Welcomingly, the number of children killed or seriously injured was 61%. Car occupants, pedestrians and motorcyclists accounted for the vast majority of deaths at 48%, 23% and 21% respectively in 2009, when pedestrian fatalities were 50% below the 1994-98 average and car occupant fatalities were 40% below the average.

We want to ensure that Britain remains a world leader in road safety, and to continue the downward trend in road casualties. We are determined to crack down on the antisocial and dangerous driving that still leads to far too many fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. It is with that aim that last month colleagues in the Department for Transport published a new strategic framework for road safety. Its focus is on supporting road users who have weak driving skills or display a lapse of judgment to improve their driving through a greater range of educational courses to help to deliver safer skills and attitudes, while focusing enforcement resources on those who deliberately decide to undertake antisocial and dangerous driving behaviour, and that covers all careless and dangerous driving offences. This is the Government’s twin approach to improving road safety.

The new strategic framework for road safety sets out the Government’s plans. Among other measures, they are: to require offenders to pass a test before they regain their licence after a serious disqualification; to make greater use of powers to seize vehicles to keep the most dangerous drivers off the road; to improve enforcement against drink and drug driving as announced in the response to the North report in March; to increase the use of police-approved educational courses that can be offered in place of fixed penalty notices to encourage safer driving behaviour; to launch a new post-test qualification for new drivers, including an assessment process, and to continue to improve the driving and motorcycling training processes. The framework, in harmony with the coalition’s commitment to localism, also aims to give greater clarity to local authorities and road safety professionals, and to free up local authorities to assess and to act on their own priorities to improve road safety.

Returning to sentencing, I want to make it clear that the courts take dangerous driving seriously. The 2010 figures show that around 3,200 offenders were sentenced, of whom about 1,100 were given immediate custodial sentences. The average custodial sentence length has increased consistently over recent years from 7.7 months in 2000 to 9.7 months in 2010. In his speech on his ten-minute rule Bill, the hon. Gentleman argued that the courts could not sufficiently punish instances of dangerous driving when very serious harm is caused. He then argued, as he did today, that the maximum penalty of two years for this offence does not give the courts enough scope, and that it should be raised to seven years. He will recall that I was on the Front Bench and that I sat and listened to his speech. I have, of course, given thought to the issues that he raised.

Maximum penalties are not necessarily the only way of addressing issues of appropriate punishment within the criminal justice system. As will be clear from what I have said, there is a complex legacy of maximum penalties relating to traffic offences, and we should not regard making changes to them as the answer to every issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said that there are other penalties that are apparently logically inconsistent. The challenge of ensuring a completely consistent range of offences and penalties against a backdrop of ever-changing social problems and priorities will be well understood by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, who knows that the Law Commission has given that some thought. The alternative legislative answer to a major one-off overhaul of our criminal law to deliver the coherence that he seeks would be to legislate on a case-by-case basis to address identifiable gaps. That approach would not necessarily improve the overall coherence of our system

The Government have said that they do not want to pursue a pattern of constantly tinkering with legislation if we can possibly avoid it, so we must consider other possible solutions if they are available.