|
Home Office Consultation
Home Office
Lyndsay Gittus
Fry Building
2nd Floor
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
6 May 2005
Dear Lyndsay Gittus,
Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving
RoadPeace wishes to provide a response to the above
consultation.
RoadPeace is UK's charity dedicated to supporting bereaved and
injured road crash victims and representing their interests. Set up
in 1992, almost 100 years after the first death by a car, RoadPeace
has from the outset been acutely aware of the deeply unsatisfactory
legal response to road death and injury and began campaigning in
order to improve it, for two main reasons: firstly, because the
experience of injustice added greatly to the suffering of road
crash victims, and secondly, because the casual legal response to
law breaking while driving, and even to deaths and injuries
resulting from road law breaking, represented no deterrent. It
seemed to give a distinct message that culpable killing and maiming
on the road was far less serious than off road.
RoadPeace believes that it is crucial to respond appropriately
to the consequences of crashes, in order to prevent them - both are
interdependent.
RoadPeace has played a pioneering role in highlighting post crash
and road law issues - it brought the road victim as well as road
danger reduction perspective to the attention of many individuals
and organisations, nationally - through membership of working
groups - at PACTS, Victim Support, The Metropolitan Police and many
more, by co-founding the Safer Streets Coalition, Slower Speeds
Initiative and Children and Traffic Coalition and working with many
partners, and internationally by representing UK victims at the
European Federation of Road Traffic Victims, the World Health
Organisation, United Nations, European Transport Safety Council and
other international organisations and institutions.
For over 13 years, RoadPeace researched and documented the
experiences of road victims within the criminal justice system, had
numerous meetings with relevant ministers and officials, delivered
thousands of signatures for a petition on law change, launched in
1998 a Campaign for Justice for Road Traffic Victims that called
for national standards in investigation and for criminal and civil
justice, set up an All Party Parliamentary Group for Justice for
Road Traffic Victims, which at the last count had 160 members, held
conferences, seminars and lectures, as well as responded to
countless Government Enquiries and Consultations on this topic. In
those many responses, RoadPeace provided evidence of the injustice
delivered by the prosecuting authorities and suffered by road crash
victims, and made practical proposals for improvements.
*******************************************
In 1995, we responded to the Road Safety Report of that
year and were the first to point out that the introduction of the
1991 Road Traffic Act Amendment had led to many fewer Section 1
prosecutions, rather than more as was intended, but which no-one
else had monitored. We also called for reducing danger at source by
speed limits enforced rigorously, non-motorway speed limits reduced
and speed limiters and black boxes fitted to all vehicles.
In 1996, we responded to the Transport Committee's Enquiry
on Risk Reduction for Vulnerable Road Users and listed five main
concerns:
I Lack of respect and responsibility towards vulnerable road
users
II Lack of traffic law enforcement
III Inadequate investigation following injury and death
IV Inadequate law and failure to prosecute under existing law
V Lack of support for road traffic victims and victim
families
We called for tougher action by police against
all violations of road traffic laws, especially speeding, referring
to RoadPeace's publication Tough on Speed, the first such
publication, called for a review of the law and the application of
existing laws.
From 1997, we responded, amongst many others, to the
following consultations and enquiries - on behalf of and from the
perspective of road crash victims:
* Liability for psychiatric Illness and Damages for Wrongful Death
by Law Commission
* Enquiry into the Inquest System by Lord Williams of Mostyn
* Review of the Coroners Charter by the Home Office
* Review of the Crown Prosecution Service by Sir Iain
Glidewell
* Our Healthier Nation, when we called for a coordinated approach
by all relevant government departments to tackle this grave public
health problem
* Transport White Paper by the DETR
* Reform of the Offences Against the Person Act by the Home
Office
* Crime and Disorder Audits by Police Forces and Local
Authorities
* Review of the CPS Code
* Research into the application of the 1991 Road Traffic Act, by
TRL
* Reforming the Law on Manslaughter, by the Home Office
* The Road Death Manual, by ACPO
* Work related road death and road safety, by the HSE
* Road Traffic Penalties Review, by the Home Office
* Review of the Victims' Charter, by the Home Office
* The 2002 Quality Review of Road Accident Injury Statistics, by
the DTLR
* London Policing Priorities for 2002/3 by the Metropolitan Police
Authority
* Consultation on Sentencing Reform by the Home Office
* Consultation on Transport and Social Exclusion by the Social
Exclusion Unit
* Consultation on 'A Road Safety Strategy for Wales' by Welsh
National Assembly
* Enquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
* Complaints about the Police by Road Victims, for PCA
* Development of a Rural Road Hierarchy for Speed Management
* Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt for Lord
Chancellor's Dept
* Sentencing for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving - Sentencing
Advisory Panel
* Paper for HM Inspectorate of CPS -Thematic Review of Road Death
Cases
* Consultation on Review of Coroners' Service
* Transport Committee Enquiry: Traffic Law and its
Enforcement
* Road Traffic Speed - Traffic & Children Coalition
* Courts Administration Programme
* Review of London's Road Safety Plan
* Graduated Fixed Penalties for Speeding Offences
*******************************************
We of course welcome the fact that this consultation on a
'Review of Road Traffic Offences' is taking place, however
frustrated we have felt over the past 13 years at the delay of
proper action in this area. The long years of waiting have meant
that hundreds of thousands of bereaved and injured road crash
victims have suffered additional agony and distress, on top of
their bereavement or injury, through the lack of justice, of
acknowledgement, or the application of measures to prevent similar
deaths and injuries from occurring.
For RoadPeace, the years of waiting have had one advantage -
they provided us with a massive experience of road traffic law in
practice - the accumulated experience of thousands of cases. This
practical knowledge will enable us to comment on the proposals of
the consultation from the perspective of practitioners - with the
experience of how the various agencies work and how this can
influence the legal outcome. Additionally, we have been able to
consult our many members on their views on how they wish to see
road traffic law reformed and we will reflect those views.
We hope that RoadPeace's response will therefore be given due
weight, and not be treated as only one of many individual
responses.
Summary
This well-written and careful report shows how certain proposals
were considered and then discarded. It rightly recognises the role
of the law in preventing future tragedies, but makes it clear that
cost is a major issue. The traffic law and its enforcement are
already starved of resources and the Magistrates Courts are too
often used because they are cheaper.
The terms of reference were to review the law, after years of
blundering, but instead the report is concerned with how to deal
with drivers whose driving is not in the worst category but has
fatal or serious consequences, and whether the current offences of
bad driving can be improved so as to work more effectively. This is
not what was asked! The law has not worked satisfactorily since the
North Report, and nothing in this report addresses the causes of
it.
There is recognition of the difficulties in charging manslaughter
under the current law and a fall back position to alternative
charges is provided. This may mean that the manslaughter charge
will be brought more often, which will give information about the
attitude of the courts to a manslaughter charge.
* RoadPeace believes that killing on the road should be treated as
any other killing, and that therefore the proper charge following a
culpable road death is a Manslaughter charge (possibly Vehicular
Manslaughter or Vehicular Homicide, or Motor Manslaughter) - a
common law charge and not a separate traffic charge. This would
also make us consistent with the rest of Europe, where a road death
is addressed by a general homicide charge: Manslaughter in France,
Reckless Killing in Germany, Murder /Manslaughter in Sweden.
Of those RoadPeace members who completed a questionnaire on
possible charges, 64% opted for manslaughter as the preferred
charge.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, said on 11
January 2005 at the Second Reading of the Road Safety Bill:
"Someone who kills someone else using a car is just as guilty
and just as culpable as someone who uses a weapon to do
so."
In the Transport Select Committee's report on Traffic Law and
Enforcement, the Metropolitan Police suggested that charges of
manslaughter should be used more than at present (48)
* RoadPeace also believes that there must be a separate offence to
cover injury on the roads - we do not think it acceptable to merely
ask the courts to take injury into account when sentencing. Dealing
seriously with injuries, with hearings held in Crown Courts, was
also suggested by the Transport Select Committee - in their report
'Traffic Law and its Enforcement' (52). We would again suggest that
charges for culpable off road injury could be used for injuries
caused by culpable driving - the range of offences under the
Offences Against the Person Act, such as Causing Actual Bodily Harm
or Causing Grievous Bodily Harm.
The human rights of victims, their families and all road users
must be upheld.
From the Transport Select Committee's Report on Traffic Law and
Enforcement, November 2004: "One of the themes of this report
is that the law on our roads should not be seen as somehow
different from ordinary law...The penalties for road traffic
offences must match the penalties for other crimes against the
person, and for crimes against property. Offenders must not face
lower sentences, simply because their crime involved a
car."
* Regarding bad driving and driving standards:
* Driving standards ought to be set against the minimum standards
required by the driving test - therefore Section 38 of Road Traffic
Act 1988 should be amended to give the Highway Code the same
statutory footing as other codes, such as the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act.
* To allow the Magistrates Courts a wider range of sentencing
options to reflect degrees of bad driving - the penalty for Section
3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 should be amended, from Level 4 - to
Level 5.
Questions for consideration
Paragraph 1.18
* We agree that there should continue to be a mix of general and
specific offences to deal with bad driving.
* We do, however, believe that the two standards - careless and
dangerous - are too difficult to apply in practice with any
consistency or certainty. There has never been a definition of what
constitutes a standard of a competent and careful driver, therefore
decisions on what is below or far below are of necessity arbitrary,
subjective, inconsistent, and therefore not constructive.
Driving charges should be consistent with the two driving test
standards, which means that any driving conduct which would result
in immediate driving test failure should be considered dangerous
driving/ driving endangering other road users, while conducts that
would attract a warning should be treated as inconsiderate driving.
The Highway Code should be given the same statutory footing as
other codes in criminal procedures.
This is supported by the Transport Select Committee's report
Traffic Law and Enforcement: (64)"The Metropolitan Police suggested
that the standard for competent driving should be identified in the
Highway Code and that "when any assessment of bad driving is to be
made the question (should be) 'would the manoeuvre or series of
manoeuvres have caused the driver to fail the driving test?". If
the answer is yes then the case for bad driving is complete. This
seems a far better benchmark than those in the charging
standards."
The present charging standards, agreed between ACPO and CPS without
any public consultation, advise police officers to charge drivers
who have killed - by having gone through red traffic lights
or by having read a paper or a map while driving - only with
'careless driving'! We note that there has been no reference in the
consultation to the charging standards, their quality standard or
monitoring of application.
* Objective tests should be applied with regards to the quality of
driving, but based on the Driving test standards.
* Rather than use 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving charges, which
have proved to be so problematic for the above reasons, we would
support the two following charges -
'Driving without consideration for other road users', with
Level 5 penalties, and
'Endangering other road users whilst driving', with a
possible 5 year custodial sentence, automatic ban and
re-test.
Paragraph 1.19
* The value of the statement that careless driving must be defined
to include all bad driving below the dangerous standard is not
clear to us. This is the case at present. The problem is that the
concept of careless driving and the treatment in law of careless
driving trivialise culpable homicide and culpable causing of
serious injury. It is not just the penalty but the label that is
objectionable - in terms of prevention, justice, as well as the
families' feelings. The TRL publication 'Dangerous Driving and the
Law' made the point that highly negligent driving was charged as
careless, and only reckless driving was classified as dangerous.
Many cases treated as careless are highly culpable and this
proposal will not affect the position.
* It is welcomed that the proposal is for an indictable offence
in each case of a culpable road death, heard in a Crown Court,
mainly because this will be a great improvement after the years of
injustice endured by thousands of people whose loved ones' deaths
have been, and still are, treated as irrelevant in Magistrates
Courts and followed by derisory fines and licence points.
But the fact that one charge will be seen as so much more serious
than the other (a 5 year custodial sentence compared with 14 years;
but it is 14 years for burglary!) will mean that there will be
downgrading to the lesser charge, when there are already very few
Section 1 charges. It will mean that the first policeman on the
scene will still decide on the charge (and hence also sentence),
from a raft of offences, to which two new ones will have been
added. Crucially, it will mean that other factors that may have led
to the death, other than the driving standard, will be left
unexamined or ignored.
The authors of the report do not recognise that concentrating on
the level of driving is not the right approach - the death must
be the central issue!
Nicholas Atkinson QC said in his speech 'Time to Change the
Law':
"The law should be concerned with the consequences of the
driving. The death of an individual is the starting point, which
demands proper investigation and proper punishment where
appropriate. We should get away from dangerousness, recklessness,
carelessness - the death is the crucial issue."
A bereaved mother's comments on the questionnaire in respect of the
preferred charge for a road death: "Also cases of 'Causing death
by dangerous driving' should be replaced by a charge of
Manslaughter. It changes the way the police deal with the
investigation, stops the death being treated as just a 'road
traffic accident' and means it is treated first and foremost as a
death of a human being." More comments are
attached.
RoadPeace has delivered to the House of Commons and Home Office
thousands of signatures for a petition on law change, which called
for:
"...an end to the treatment of road death and injury as
merely the unfortunate by-product of a piece of driving instead of
the killing and hurting of fellow human beings"
and asked for
"a law which treats a road death caused through law breaking
and negligence with a homicide charge, and serious injury similarly
caused, with an appropriate charge also involving a hearing before
a judge and jury and the level of culpability reflected in the
sentence.
RoadPeace believes that the proper charge following a culpable road
death is a Manslaughter charge (possibly Vehicular or Motor
Manslaughter or Vehicular Homicide) - a common law charge and not a
separate traffic charge since a killing on the road should be
treated as any other killing. This would also make us consistent
with the rest of Europe, where a road death is addressed by a
general homicide charge: Manslaughter in France, Reckless Killing
in Germany, Murder and Manslaughter in Sweden, for example.
Of those RoadPeace members who completed a questionnaire on charges
for a culpable road death, 64% opted for manslaughter as the
preferred charge, 30% for Causing death by careless driving, with
many respondents seeing this as an interim solution, and 6%
suggested other charges - 'Neglectful driving leading to death (or
injury); Causing death by Driving; Causing death by negligent
driving; Motor Manslaughter; Manslaughter by Motor-vehicle and
Aggravated Manslaughter by Motor-vehicle; Vehicular Manslaughter;
Reckless Killing.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, said on 11
January 2005 at the Second Reading of the Road Safety Bill:
"Someone who kills someone else using a car is just as guilty
and just as culpable as someone who uses a weapon to do
so."
In the Transport Select Committee's report on Traffic Law and
Enforcement, the Metropolitan Police suggested that charges of
manslaughter should be used more than at present (48).
We would like the police to concentrate on collecting all the
evidence and have the level of culpability decided by the sentence.
We submit that the courts are not perfect, but we would prefer a
judge to consider the level of culpability, rather than as at
present - the first policeman on the scene, or the CPS official -
deciding on the charge and thereby also already on the
sentence.
It has been argued in the context of murder and manslaughter by
Louis Blom Cooper and others that a general homicide offence,
leaving the court to determine the degree of culpability, would be
more just than having to fit every scenario into one of two pigeon
holes. This argument must apply even more in the context of the
right to life and where the gap between two offences is still so
great. The key concept is of total culpability.
The statutory offence of 'Causing death by reckless or dangerous
driving' was introduced almost 50 years ago, in 1956. It had been
reviewed, amended and changed time and again over the years -
because it has not been working satisfactorily.
'Time to change the Law' by Nicholas Atkinson QC is
attached.
The Road Traffic Victims and Justice Timeline below gives further
details of the various struggles and attempts at improving the
law.
It is imperative that after such a long and painful period,
Parliament will draft a road traffic law that will deliver justice
and prove a deterrent - to reduce so many preventable deaths and
end the long-time profound injustice suffered by so many
people.
Road traffic victims and justice timeline
| Year |
Event |
Note |
| 1984 |
R v Boswell |
Intended to increase sentencing levels for the
offence. Lord Lane stated the offence had been 'regarded by the
courts as less serious than in fact it is, less serious than
Parliament intended it to be, and less serious than the public in
general regard it'. Guidelines included 7-10 years disqualification
and 2 year or more imprisonment for racing on highway or drink
driving related deaths. |
| 1991 |
Causing death by dangerous driving (CDDD) in Road
Traffic Act of 1991 |
This replaces causing death by reckless driving
but keeps same maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment |
| 1991 |
Causing death by careless driving while under the
influence of drink or drugs |
Road Traffic Act 1991 |
| 1992 |
Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking |
Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1992 Maximum penalty
5 years imprisonment |
| 1993 |
Causing death by dangerous driving maximum penalty
increased to 10 years |
Criminal Justice Act 1993. Disqualification for a
minimum period of 2 years and endorsement are obligatory, and the
offence carries 3 to 11 penalty points. The offender must pass an
extended driving test before license can be restored. |
| 1993-1994 |
Court of Appeal reviewed Boswell guidelines |
Recommended increasing guidelines of 2 years or
more for CDDD cases to upwards of 5 years. |
| 1995 |
Law Commission Report on Involuntary
Manslaughter |
RoadPeace campaign to get road death included in
reform of Involuntary Manslaughter |
| 1996 |
Joint Police/CPS Driving Offences Charging
Standard |
Charge of manslaughter 'will very rarely be
appropriate in road traffic fatality cases because of the existence
of the statutory offences.' Emphasizes fact of injury or death is
not relevant except where Parliament has made specific provision
for the death to be reflected in the charge. |
| 1998 |
Reforming the Offences against the Person Act
1861 |
RoadPeace requests that road traffic injury is
brought within the law applicable to other types of injury. |
| 1998 |
RoadPeace Justice Campaign and All Party
Parliamentary Group for Justice for Road Traffic Victims. |
Death or injury to be the central issue of the
charge Strategic approach by all relevant government departments to
address this major public health and human rights issue in
partnership |
| 1999 |
R v Simmons decision |
Magistrates may (but need not) take the
consequences of a minor traffic offence into account in
sentencing. |
| 1999 |
RoadPeace Agenda for Change |
RoadPeace proposals for change included: 1. single
indictable offence for all negligent drivers who killed on the road
2. Strict liability with drivers required to prove their driving
was not at fault in collisions with vulnerable road users. 3.
Parity with all other cases where death or injury has been caused
through equivalent negligence. |
| 2000 |
House of Lords debate on road traffic law |
Lord Williams of Elvell initiated a debate on
inadequacy of law |
| 1999-2000 |
CDDD punishment analysis |
62% in 1999 and 58% in 2000 convicted with CDDD
were given prison sentences below 3 years and also many under 12
months. 2000 66% of adult male offenders pleaded guilty to CDDD and
had average custodial sentence of 43.5 months while those that
pleaded not guilty had 31.3 months. |
| 2000 |
Home Office's Reforming the Law on Involuntary
Manslaughter |
Excluded fatal driving offences as 'major research
study underway' |
| 2000 |
Government consultation on Road Traffic
Penalties |
No change to penalty of CDDD but include proposal
for increasing maximum sentence for the offence of causing death by
aggravated vehicle taking to 10 years. Also proposed increase in
maximum penalty for dangerous driving from 2 years to 5 years
imprisonment. |
| 2002 |
DfT Dangerous Driving and the Law |
Recommended extending causing death by dangerous
driving to include serious injuries and should consult on
introducing new imprisonable offence of negligent driving and
causing death by negligent driving or careless driving. |
| 2002 |
Sentencing Advisory Panel Consultation on
Sentencing in cases of causing death by dangerous driving |
Starting point for CDDD should be a custodial
sentence of up to 12 months for no aggravating or mitigating
features while high culpability should incur 2-5 years as starting
point. Panel suggests custodial sentence over 5 years be only for
cases with 3 or more aggravating features. Disqualification -
shorter bans of 2 years or so for good driving records, 3-5 years
for bad records, 5-10 years for real and continuing danger to other
road users and lifetime disqualification very rare. |
| 2003 |
Review of Road Traffic Penalties |
Announced on May 13, 2003, expected to be
completed by September 2003, and consulted on by March 2004. |
| 2003 |
Court of Appeal new guidelines on CDDD sentencing
and causing death while DUI |
Expanded series of aggravating and mitigating
factors |
| 2005 |
Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad
Driving consultation |
Launched on 3 February 2005 |
* How can penalties available for careless driving deal
adequately with 'the most serious forms of the offence,
including those that cause injury'?! The maximum penalty available
is a fine of £2.500, but because the Magistrate Courts operate
a 'Unit fine system through the back door' as they have to take the
income of offenders into account and the short time (1 year) in
which the Courts need to collect this fine (their performance is
judged by the amount of money outstanding at the end of a financial
year!), the average fine imposed for 'careless driving' cases, even
those that involve a death, is below £200. Few Magistrates use
their powers to issue driving bans - drivers are given instead 6-8
penalty points. It needs to be stressed that these maximum
penalties are penalties for Level 4 offences = minor
offences, to which most drivers are only too eager to plead
guilty, or are persuaded to, whereupon they receive a 1/3 discount
of the guideline penalties, which are already low.
We do not believe that where injuries have been caused
through culpable driving, the charge should be 'careless driving'
only and will deal with this in the appropriate section.
But we propose for other cases of bad driving - in order to allow
the Magistrates Courts a wider range of sentencing options, so as
to reflect various degrees of bad driving, that the penalties for
Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 should be amended, from
Level 4 - to Level 5.
* We do not think it is acceptable to merely ask the courts to
take injury into account when sentencing, especially since with
the present sentencing structure for Section 3, which would be the
most likely charge brought in injury cases, the maximum sentence is
a fine (we have given details of the level of fines imposed in
practice); no custodial sentence is available.
There is no logical argument against a charge that takes
account of the injury caused, in fact the right of injured persons
to a fair trial under human rights legislation would appear to be
seriously compromised by a failure to address their injury by a
criminal charge. This failure would also have a direct effect of
injured road crash victims being denied the basic level of services
by the statutory agencies, to which all victims are entitled, and
thereby their human rights would be breached yet again.
There are over 30,000 serious injuries on the roads per year and we
know that this is an underestimate, which is probably the reason
why this perverse proposal has been made in the first place. But
there is no justification in continuing to deny those injured road
crash victims who should have a criminal case brought against a
culpable driver who inflicted their injuries, the justice in the
criminal courts they deserve and are entitled to.
We believe that there must be a separate offence to cover
injury on the roads - we do not think it is acceptable to merely
ask the courts to take injury into account in the case of the two
general charges applied for bad driving..
What is experienced as serious violence against the person is
treated as a summary traffic offence or ignored altogether by the
prosecuting authorities. It is the experience of our charity and
thousands of road victims every year that prosecutions are
frequently not brought in injury cases. If a charge is brought,
normally driving without due care and attention (Section 3RTA), and
rarely the more serious charge of dangerous driving, the injury
which resulted, however serious, is not addressed at all. This
patent injustice adds considerably to the distress the injured
endure.
The Transport Select Committee in their report Traffic Law and
Enforcement asked that:
(52) Any reform of motoring offences should follow three broad
principles:
- Causing serious injury should be considered very
serious;
- All cases which involve death or serious injury
should be heard in the Crown Court, not Magistrates
Courts;
- The gulf between the penalties available for
causing death by dangerous driving and for other dangerous or
negligent offences should be closed. In particular, there should be
far higher maximum sentences for some of the behaviour, which is
now classified as careless driving.
RoadPeace would like to see injury on the road brought within
the law applicable to other types of injury - we therefore suggest
that common law charges are applied for injuries caused by culpable
driving, such as Causing Actual Bodily Harm or Causing Grievous
Bodily Harm.
* We agree that alternative verdicts should be made available when
the offence of manslaughter is charged.
* We agree with changing the wording wanton and furious, possibly
to 'irresponsible driving'*
Since this charge has been used for off road driving or driving
types of vehicles not covered by the Road Traffic Acts, it must
be ensured that off road driving and driving experimental and home
made vehicles is covered in law.
Paragraph 1.20
* We believe there should be an option of a custodial sentence for
culpable driving causing injury. This will be achieved by an
indictable charge, which will have injury as the central
issue.
* Here are some comments on restorative justice:
Is restorative justice used in other types of homicide*It can be
cathartic to see the offender whom a victim family may have
demonised in their mind, but it could also go badly wrong. The
decision must be left to the victims, but no victim can ever be
adequately prepared or have the experience to take such a decision,
especially early on, so this has to be treated with great
caution.
Restorative justice should only be applied in addition to proper
charges and sentences and not be treated as 'alternative
justice'.
Paragraph 1.21
* There would have to be a causal link between the death and the
uninsured driver - we would object on grounds of justice to making
an offence more serious if the offender was not responsible
for the death. More should be done to prevent so many drivers being
able to drive while uninsured.
With a manslaughter charge, all factors and additional offences
would be taken into account and reflected in the sentence.
* The same causal link should apply to injury.
* Uninsured driving should be treated seriously, but far more
seriously should the offence of Hit and Run be
treated. Many drivers escape from the scene because they are
uninsured, or banned, or because they are above the drink-drive
limit, or because they have taken drugs before driving - leaving
the person they have knocked down or crashed into to die or to be
run over or crashed into by other drivers. It is the most cowardly
and reprehensible offence, yet drivers are routinely charged with
failure to stop- a minor offence.
Why are there no proposals to deal with the epidemic of Hit and
Run?
A manslaughter charge would be able to incorporate all offences
leading to death on the road and in the case of hit and run, the
sentence would be able to reflect the gravity of this conduct, and
the fact that both Government and society find this conduct
appalling and wholly unacceptable.
There should also be proposals for dealing adequately with
persistent offenders - who continue to drive while banned, while
uninsured or indeed unqualified.
We believe that forfeiture of vehicles could be used in such cases
and technology applied to identify these offenders.
Paragraph 1.22
* RoadPeace believes that it is crucial to respond appropriately to
the consequences of crashes, in order to prevent them - both are
interdependent.
Treating road death and injury seriously in law would
cost money, it would cost more especially initially, but this
outlay would more than be returned - in health cost savings for
the treatment of the injured, which is often required for their
entire lives, and for the treatment of people depressed and
suicidal following the sudden violent deaths of loved ones, often
their children's - in having a whole generation of young people,
who we will NOT educate and then allow to be wiped out,
contribute to the economy and well-being of the country through
their work and talents and the happiness of their families.
The quote below, regarding expert enquiries into road
deaths and costs, by Prof A L Goodhart KBE, from 1950 (!),
supports this view:
"Need for Expert Enquiries
If there is to be an
enlightened attitude towards road safety, the public must have more
information. If motorists and pedestrians are to stop blaming each
other, they must be told much more about the causes of accidents,
not merely about their weekly totals.
For a start, I suggest that every fatal accident should be
investigated in a thorough, scientific manner: unfortunately this
will give us more than enough material. We cannot get this
information from coroners' inquests, which ought to be abolished in
all motor cases. They can do no good, and sometimes they do great
harm.
In place of these enquiries there ought to be substituted expert
investigations in every case. Why have such striking improvements
been made in recent years in the accident rate in the coalmines, on
the railways, in the factories, and in merchant shipping? One
answer is that in each of these instances the responsible Minister
has the power to appoint an inspector when a fatal accident has
happened. When one railway train collides with another, we all know
that a proper investigation will be held. Strange to say, the Road
Traffic Act1930 gives such a power to the Minister of Transport,
but it is hardly ever exercised. There were four inquiries in the
first 15 years. Section 23 provides that "Where an accident arises
out of the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, the Minister may
direct inquiry to be made into the causes."
"If instead of the 4.700 useless inquests, which are held every
year, 4,700 serious investigations by experts were carried out,
then we might begin to reduce the death roll on the roads as we
have in the mines and the factories. In the place of charges and
counter-charges there we would have the uncontrovertible
facts."
"It may be argued that 4.700 enquiries, properly conducted,
would prove expensive, but we must remember that 4,700 funerals
are even more expensive..."
The Transport Select Committee also commented on quality
investigations:
(56.) "The relatively low proportion of serious cases that come to
court would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation
and any subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question. There
will always be some crashes which are "genuine accidents"; the
important thing is that the public is confident that proper
investigation takes place, and that legal proceedings are brought
whenever appropriate. Victims and their relatives, and the
organisations campaigning for victims, clearly have no such
confidence. They appear to be right."
*Every road death is calculated to cost over £1 million
600,000, which does not include the wider costs of the impact on
families, incl. effects of injustice.
Evidence from France's present serious stance 'against road
violence' has shown an almost immediate marked decrease in
fatalities (2,000 in the first 6 months, probably thousands of
injuries prevented) - the savings will be enormous and are likely
to cover, if not outweigh, the costs of enforcement and
prosecutions. The additional benefits to families and society are
priceless.
Most importantly -
The human rights of victims, their families, and road users,
must be paramount
Yours sincerely,
Brigitte Chaudhry MBE
Founder & President
Member of the European Federation of Road Traffic
Victims (FEVR) which has UN consultative status
Registered charity No 1087192. Company limited by guarantee,
registration no 4165519
Registered office: Unit 53, Designworks, Park Parade, London NW10
4HT
|
