- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Palace Of Westminster At Night © Andrew Dunn.jpgMP calls for manslaughter charges in dangerous driving cases
Gareth Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford, has called for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to more frequently consider charging with manslaughter rather than death by dangerous driving. He argues that this would allow life sentences to be handed out, rather than a maximum of 14 years.
The comments were made during a House of Commons adjournment debate on sentencing for dangerous driving offences.
“If a person causes someone’s death by behaving in a grossly negligent or reckless manner anywhere else in society, they are charged with manslaughter. If that happens on the road, however, they are not; they are charged with death by dangerous driving. There is no legal reason why that should be.”
Johnson argues that if a person is convicted of manslaughter, it gives the sentencing court far more powers and a maximum possible sentence of life, rather than 14 years. However, Mike Penning, the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, responded by saying that it was a question of whether the driver intended to go and do what they did and that this was why the CPS tended to hold back from prosecuting for murder or manslaughter.
The debate had been secured by Alok Sharma, the Conservative MP for Reading West. He is pushing for a change in sentencing laws in the wake of a case involving two of his constituents, cyclists John Morland and Kris Jarvis, who were killed as a result of the dangerous driving of Alexander Walter earlier this year.
Walter was driving without insurance, at 70mph in a 30mph zone, whilst already disqualified from driving. He was nearly two and a half times over the alcohol limit and was being pursued by police. He had also taken cocaine less than 24 hours prior to the incident and had 67 previous criminal convictions, including a bomb hoax only days after 9/11. After pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, he was sentenced to 10 years and three months imprisonment.
Sharma would like to see consecutive, rather than concurrent sentences being served.
“If Walter had been given 14 years for each death, he would now be facing 28 years behind bars rather than being out in what will probably be a lot less than 10 years.”
Sharma drew attention to an online petition launched by Tracey Fidler and Hayley Lindsay, the fiancées of Jarvis and Morland. The petition calls for drivers to receive a maximum sentence of 14 years per person who has been killed and so far, 25,000 people have signed.
“I do not believe that 10 years was a long enough sentence for what Walter did. The families affected do not believe that, and, so far, 25,000 people across our land do not, either. We have heard today that Members of Parliament representing many, many people across our country do not believe that that was right. I would like us all to sign the petition, which should influence the review, and to bring about a change in the law.”
The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, has already committed to a review of all driving related offences and penalties which is expected to conclude early next year. Penning, the minister responding to the debate, committed to holding a public consultation on the issue. Sharma said he would be urging as many people as possible to take part, to make absolutely clear the strength of public feeling.
CTC, the national cycling charity, have been one of the groups campaigning for a sentencing review. Roger Geffen, Campaigns and Policy Director, said:
“Driving is unique among day-to-day activities, in that a momentary lapse of attention can lead to another person being killed or maimed. CTC’s Road Justice campaign believes the legal system needs to reinforce the responsibilities of drivers for the safety of other road users – particularly pedestrians and cyclists – while recognising that jurors will sometimes be reluctant to convict drivers for crimes they know they could easily have committed themselves.
“The courts need to be much more willing to use long driving bans as a sentencing option, with long custodial sentences being reserved for really serious cases – like that of Alexander Farrar Walter – where there is a significant risk of the driver reoffending. This approach ensures public protection, as well as providing a strong deterrent to prevent bad driving occurring in the first place.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 1 hour 57 min ago
it seems that most places just rely on sufficient policing to reduce the issue...
- Matt Page 2 hours 41 min ago
Many manufacturers, including Scribe, can give you methods to reduce the noise level. On Scribe, and other ratchet designs it's usually just adding...
- wtjs 3 hours 19 min ago
It wouldn't work at all where wtjs lives...
- Sriracha 3 hours 36 min ago
Pretty sure AI could skim through hours of footage in a few seconds to identify suspicious events. Of course someone in authority has to care in...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 43 min ago
Bonsai samurai? Or is it just a case of "they seem to get smaller every year"?
- IanGlasgow 4 hours 46 min ago
Sorry to see Endura struggling. They're based in Linvignston, not Edinburgh, which puts them very close to where I grew up....
- mdavidford 6 hours 27 min ago
I dunno - seems like it's coming round on a regular basis...
- Rich_cb 8 hours 9 min ago
The mistake is to focus on the US....
- chrisonabike 8 hours 21 min ago
I mean it seems silly to complain in detail when we're firmly in the territory in the UK of "you will have to live with this the rest of your life ...
- eburtthebike 10 hours 52 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
Add new comment
21 comments
I support this fully but see this as a method to help alter driver habits rather than go looking to punish the guilty. About time we had a mass scale government campaign and some actual law enforcement to back it up.
Only this morning I was driving to work and the woman behind me was clearly texting whilst driving - head down, occupied, occasionally glancing up - I challenged her when she pulled up along side me at some traffic lights and she just shrugged it off despite me telling her she was an ignorant **** on a direct course with the morgue. if this is the attitude of drivers across the country we are screwed and only laws -with enforcement- like this are going to knock some sense into their stupid tiny brains.
a woman in the NE was caught last month driving whilst three times over the legal alcohol limit and still drinking at the wheel - for risking the life of everyone around her she got a £400 fine
we are a very long way indeed from the authorities taking road safety even remotely seriously. for the courts, prosecutors and police it's just not a priority.
If the 'cost' argument is correct, and it's hard to know because I can't read the Govt's mind...
1: it's deeply cynical;
2: it's completely short-sighted.
It's short-sighted because road deaths and serious incidents are a cost on the public purse, and because weak sentencing may also contribute to putting people off cycling – when it's well-known that more people cycling is highly beneficial to the public finances because of the health benefits and by reducing congestion.
But of course prison is Home Office budget, while the other things come under Transport and Health – is no-one in Govt looking at the bigger picture?
The Government wants as few people in prison as possible hence charging for lesser offences which give a fraction of the jail time if any at all. It's all down to cost. Locking more people up for longer costs a lot of money.
Yup thats pretty much true. Plus Joe Public dont care about the Prison Service either. Unless were locking up Beasts and Peadophiles, no one cares.
The cost argument is a good way of rationalising a death sentence. Assuming you have the technology and processes in place to eliminate doubt or corruption it could be a more logical approach managing long term criminals.
If it was a voluntary option then perhaps it could be rationalised. Prison suicides are commonplace as offenders choose to end their sentences early.
You can rationalise that prison is actually a form of torture and justify it as euthanasia.
Totally not up for actual death sentences tough. Too barbaric. We're way past that here.
Not convinced that's the reason why dangerous drivers end up getting light sentences. Certainly the government is motivated by money and prison is expensive - however the bigger problem is the CPS deciding not to follow up 'death by dangerous driving' , and simply charging for 'careless driving', which attracts a far more lenient sentence. as for why they do that - perhaps the burden of proof makes it harder, the likely outcome of a conviction is lower for 'death by dangerous' rather than 'death by careless' driving.
Or perhaps there's some sinister political desire to not offend the driving population (though this news item suggests that's not the case, or is at least being challenged).
Either way, if they could address the balance of convictions and charges for dangerous vs careless, then that would go a long way to resolve this issue.
I also agree in the principle of giving drivers who kill longer sentences so that a greater maximum term can be given.
I think that statement is far from the fact and the ugly truth. The Industrialized Prison System is a multimillion dollar a year enterprise. Governments want to lock up as many people as possible. Not sure where you derive that opinion from, but it is a bit misguided and a little off the mark.
I think that statement is far from the fact and the ugly truth. The Industrialized Prison System is a multimillion dollar a year enterprise. Governments want to lock up as many people as possible. Not sure where you derive that opinion from, but it is a bit misguided and a little off the mark.
"Such as driving at 60mph in a 30mph limit or not slowing down when you can't see because the sun is directly in your eyes"
This driver could have been doing both of these things (van in 4th gear while accelerating out of a junction). Found not guilty of causing death by careless driving.
"The prosecution say he should have slowed or stopped if he could not see and that his van was in fourth gear when it was examined at the scene"
http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Van-driver-says-saw-lorry-death-cr...
If you cannot successfully prosecute someone for careless driving then a manslaughter prosecution would be a waste of effort.
I would suggest that the reason 'manslaughter' is not used is because the offence of manslaughter is a 'catch all' offence to murder. It can be straightforward to prove that someone killed a person, quite another to prove what was going through their mind at the time. The Oscar Pistorious case is a good example of this. Murder being the act of killing AND intending to kill.
In order to find a motorist guilty of manslaughter you would have to demonstrate that they caused the death and were reckless as to whether death would occur. 'Recklessness' is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. 'Blatant disregard' being defined by case law as being ALMOST a deliberate act. Not an easy thing to prove.
It is generally better to have a specific offence defined by case law and official guidance, not using a 'catch all' offence for something else. Otherwise people will be more likely to be found not guilty.
Such as driving at 60mph in a 30mph limit or not slowing down when you can't see because the sun is directly in your eyes.
Not quite true, you can be charged for murder if your intention is to cause serious harm, not necessarily to kill. You can also be charged for murder if serious harm was a 'virtual certainty' of your actions, even if it wasn't your direct intent.
there is a simple solution if only we had a government with the balls to do it. Cause a death while driving you lose the privilege of driving, permanently, and go to jail for whatever is the maximum term for manslaughter. Easy, and my goodness it would induce defensive driving.
I'm a little confused. A friend of mine killed someone while driving in the late 1980s (guy was drunk and ran out in front of him) and he ended up being investigated for man slaughter (case did not proceed).
I'm amazed that manslaughter isn't the automatic crime with which people are punished.
I work for HMP and we had a Con who was serving 10 years for manslaughter. He deliberately killed his woman passenger by deliberately crashing his car. That was 15 years ago right enough. Surprised its not a specific charge of Vehicular Manslaughter tbh.
If he deliberately crashed his car with the intention of killing his passenger why is that not murder?
Presumably because it could not be PROVEN that he INTENDED to kill his passenger
There's the old saying about if you want to kill someone, use a car. The legal system is completely wrong, and the offence of death by dangerous driving only exists because the laws were drawn up when only the rich had cars. It's been modified over the years, but the law hasn't changed in principle.
I've often thought it odd that if you kill someone through negligence with any object except a motor vehicle, it's manslaughter. Why treat them differently?