Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and extend my condolences to the constituent she is so admirably representing. I agree that it is about accountability, justice and the message that it sends to the victims and their families who have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am so glad the hon. Gentleman has called this debate. I want to include the feeling of injustice that there is for those who suffer the loss of a family member. The person who killed the wife of one of my constituents with a car chose to give a “no comment” interview. There were only two vehicles involved: a bike ridden by my constituent’s wife, and a car. The perpetrator did not deny that she had done it, but she gave a “no comment” interview throughout the proceedings, which just added to the grief and injustice that that family feels.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that tragic story and I again extend my condolences to those affected. I entirely agree. We have to think of this issue holistically, because the impact is forever for the families and friends of the victims.

If two different families and two different MPs from the same constituency have been raising the same concerns for almost a decade, Parliament has a responsibility to listen. We must ask whether our laws provide sufficient punishment, deterrence and protection for the public. If they do not, we must have the courage to change them.

Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Caerau to visit the park. For the community there, it is a daily reminder of Keely and the life lost. I know that the community support for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words will bring Keely back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family, as well as everyone who supported her campaign, for their courage. They have channelled their grief in an attempt to get the productive outcome that we are talking about here today.

Keely should have been able to cross that road safely and return home. She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. She was a daughter, a sister and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity.

Ultimately, this issue is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and acts as a meaningful deterrent to prevent further tragedies. We must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks. I urge the Government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the further contributions of colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this debate.

To pick up on something that the hon. Gentleman said, driving is a privilege. Allowing somebody who has killed or caused serious injury to another person to be able to return to the road immediately seems particularly injurious. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the hon. Gentleman’s call for automatic license revocation. The current situation feels incredibly lenient, especially considering that people have to wait a very long time for court cases to come around. The perpetrator can carry on with the rest of their life while the family is suspended in utter grief. My sense is that suspended sentences are not appropriate either, particularly in the case I am thinking of, where somebody has given a “no comment” interview to the police and chosen not to speak. It just seems so desperately unfair.

It has already been mentioned, but I also want to address the fact that there are people who are driving without insurance, tax or a valid MOT, but the police are so stretched that they cannot deal with those sorts of issue when they come along. Those “minor” infringements, as considered by those who commit them, only increase the likelihood of someone carrying on to behave more irresponsibly. I ask the Minister to look at what is happening in France and Ireland, our nearest neighbours, who take different views and actions. I am happy to send the Minister information on that.

I want to talk about one other aspect: how to prevent dangerous behaviour before it results in even one more death. I will concentrate on speeding and racing, which is a serious concern in my constituency. Between 2019 and 2024, 204 people were killed or seriously injured: 29 lost their lives and 175 suffered serious injuries. I am thinking about accidents that happened in Dinder, just outside Wells; in Blackford; and recently in the village of Ston Easton.

Those incidents are catastrophic, not just for the people who live nearby and the families but desperate for everyone involved. The people killed or seriously injured are not just statistics; they represent individuals, families and communities, whose lives are often changed for ever. I do not suggest that all those collisions involved speeding, but nationally excessive speed was a contributory factor in around one in five fatal collisions in 2024. That surely underlines why tackling excessive speeding must be central to any serious strategy to reduce road deaths.

It is great that the Department for Transport has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, but we have a Justice Minister here. I ask him to work with colleagues in the Department for Transport to address my straightforward question. The strategy includes a welcome ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65% by 2035, but where will that 65% reduction will come from? Many in the road safety community question whether the currently proposed measures are sufficient to achieve that ambition.

The strategy is relatively light on specific measures to tackle serious and persistent speeding, despite recognising speeding as one of the fatal four causes of death or serious injury on our roads. Since that strategy was published back in January, there must be an urgent need to finalise the Government’s response to the consultations, set out a clear delivery plan and to begin implementing the measures that will save lives.

I attended an event here in the Houses of Parliament where I was interested to see the intervening intelligent speed assistant, or IISA. I recognise that technology is fitted to new cars, but this feature can be fitted to cars that are already on the road. I have asked for some, as I drive 25,000 miles a year, going in and out of 20, 30 and 40 limits regularly, and I do not wish to get any points on my licence. I should declare an interest there.

Unlike the intelligence speed assistance technology fitted to new cars, which can warn drivers when they exceed the speed limit but can be overridden or switched off—although it should not be—intervening technology can actively prevent a vehicle from accelerating beyond the legal limit. That is not a theoretical idea; it is already happening in Virginia in the United States. A programme was introduced this year that allows the courts to require certain speeding offenders to use vehicles that are fitted with speed-limiting technology, which is an advance. Transport for London has also demonstrated high levels of speed-limit compliance, using intervening technology in its bus fleet.

Can this Minister get Transport Ministers to reassure us that the Secretary of State’s officials have examined the progress being made in other jurisdictions using IISA as part of offender management? Might he take a slightly different angle and just ask why we would not do that rather than why we would do it. It seems that it has been demonstrated to be effective and practical, and it has the potential to save lives, so I think that we should trial it at least.

I return to the families whose experiences lie at the heart of today’s debate. They deserve justice. They also deserve to know that we are doing everything reasonably possible to prevent other families from suffering as they have suffered.

[Tahir Ali]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we welcome the target of 65% by 2035, but by 2035 we could have had at least two general elections if not more. This is not fair on the families who have lost loved ones. We need to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries more quickly—more urgently—than 2035. If that target is set, perhaps it needs to be brought forward, into this Parliament, so that we can make a significant start on achieving that objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say to the Minister that, even with all the optimism in the world that there might be another two lots of elections, that does not provide a reason not to act. This timetable really does need to be contracted. When such simple wins could be achieved, we should do things as quickly as we possibly can: 2035 does seem an awfully long way away.

There is an ambitious target—I understand that—but we need the measures, the right timetable and determination. I ask the Minister to answer those questions that are relevant to him, and I ask him kindly to pass those that he will not be able to answer on to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Parliament could pass a law to introduce an automatic driving ban, but I think he was referring to a ban after conviction for dangerous driving. Automating such a ban before conviction would be more complex.

There is a general principle. As a Government, like Governments before us, we try to allow judicial discretion. Every case is different. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point; I am not trying to hide from the argument. The judges have the power. We need to get and understand the evidence on how often they use it and why they are not using it. Legislating to force judges’ hands can lead to further absurdities and injustices in very different ways. We allow judicial discretion because every case is different, but as I say, I accept the point.

[Tessa Munt]

I regard this as a really serious matter. I hope the Minister will address potential suspension immediately after an accident, so that people are not driving around for a year, two years, three years, or four years while they await a court case. In the same way as a perpetrator of sexual abuse, domestic abuse or whatever has to say where they live, so that the local police know where they live, one could ensure that the local police are aware that person X is not permitted to drive for a period of five years, 10 years or even forever. The local police will be the people who pick that up.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the duration of the period before trial or conviction; too often, it is far too long, but solving this problem is not as straightforward as potentially suspending someone immediately after the event. As she is no doubt aware, often very complex investigations have to take place. Of course, suspension can be a bail condition, and I am trying to assess why in too many cases it is not used.

I remember a case raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), in which someone had been bailed for causing death by dangerous driving—I think that is correct. They immediately got in a car and were convicted of drunk driving just a few hours later. That is absurd. More generally, we have to start taking driving offences, whether they are low level or high level, more seriously. The road safety strategy seeks to do that, and we want to get on with it. I am pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to make sure that seriousness of these offences is reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible.

As well as sentencing, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West spoke about graduated driving licensing. I hope I have dealt with that issue; it is on the agenda. It is very much a DFT issue, so I do not want to comment too much on it.

On sentencing guidelines, I am in a constitutional dialogue with the Sentencing Council on lots of issues and that is one of them. I will be careful what else I say about it, but I am very much alive to it.

I am also very alive to the ULS scheme. The Law Commission is working on the ULS scheme, as my hon. Friend no doubt knows from his time working with the Law Officers. We need to assess whether death by careless driving should be added to the list of offences that can be considered under the scheme. I can commit today to doing that.

[Jake Richards]

I am happy to write to the Law Commission to ask whether to consider that specific issue. I am going to consider it anyway. I want the Law Commission to do it—evidence would be helpful—but we will work with the Attorney General’s office to do that none the less. There will no doubt be some effects to that, but let us see what we can do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked last about prevention. Again, at its heart the road safety strategy tries to reach its 65% reduction target by through prevention. There is a serious amount of investment. This is the first road safety strategy in a decade, and it is backed with, I think, £18 million in prevention work, which is not an insignificant sum. We would like to do more, but I know that my hon. Friend the Roads Minister will work hard.

In terms of other questions from Members about the road safety strategy more generally, it is not my strategy, so it is difficult for me to comment on timings and when that will be. I will ask my hon. Friend the Roads Minister to write to Members who have raised specific questions and make sure that my office gets in touch with him on that.

[Tessa Munt]

I know that everybody has the right not to comment, but it is simply outrageous when that has no weight. It would be different if someone had had some sort of medical episode that meant that they were not able to remember what had happened, but where that is clearly not the case, and someone is advised by their solicitor not to comment throughout proceedings, it is really very tough on the families. Will the Minister consider that point and see if there is a way to put some weighting behind that? Will he also speak to the Victims Minister at the Ministry of Justice, because it happens repeatedly?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Lady raises a wider point about defendant conduct during a criminal investigation and how that should be taken into account in the sentencing. There are mechanisms by which that is done already. The judge considers a large number of factors, including whether the defendant has taken responsibility for their actions. If they have undertaken a “no comment” interview consistently, and simply not engaged with the criminal investigation process, that should be taken into account in sentencing.

[Tessa Munt]

I do not want to whang on, but I know that the Minister’s Department has looked just recently at what happens to people who refuse to come to court to hear their sentence, so clearly there is the ability to intervene in the process. I entreat the Minister to do something more.

[Jake Richards]

I think the Lord Chancellor announced last week further action on getting defendants to face up to their actions as much as is possible. Frankly, that is what we are talking about. We cannot force a defendant to give answers if they do not want to, but that can certainly be reflected in the sentencing regime, and it is reflected in the sentencing regime. If there are any other suggestions about how we can go further, I would be more than happy to hear from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, as a member of the Justice Committee. She always gives me the signal that she will write to me, and I look forward to responding to her in due course.