CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
Document By Email
To
Mrs Lesley Dix
Secretary to the Panel
Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat
8-10 Great George St
London SW1P 3AE
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
Due 19 April 2007
From
GEORGE AND GIULIETTA GALLI-ATKINSON
1
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
Introduction
The objective of the Road Safety legislation introduced by Parliament is to reduce the carnage on our roads to
encourage people to leave their cars at home and take to pavements. Accordingly, this would help to ease the
traffic congestion, to reduce car crashes, especially prevalent in built up areas.
Panel members should be aware, and therefore, anticipate, when coming to the conclusions on this current
consultation, that ‘Living Streets’ (The Pedestrians’ Association www.livingstreets.org.uk) have produced a
Manual for Streets which campaigns for the design of residential streets as “social places while meeting their
traffic function”. The Government, and the Councils consulted have reacted positively to ‘Living Streets’’ ideas,
including the proposal to keep pavements at the same level as residential roads. As desirable as this might be, it
renders pedestrians - who in this ideal world of 20 mph zones are placed top of the hierarchy of street users even more vulnerable to risk taking drivers.
70% of road carnage is caused in built up areas.
Excessive speed is the single biggest factor responsible for road deaths and serious injuries. Speedsters willfully
ignore the clearly marked warning speed limits, arrogating to themselves rights and freedoms above those of
others’.
Excessive speed is a form of harassment. It is aggressive driving that intimidates pedestrians, especially children,
and the fear of having a child killed by a driver is still prevalent and is what keeps the majority of parents driving
their own to and from schools or venues rather than bending to the traditional “healthy walk ethos”.
Presently, less than 10% of road fatality cases end up in the crown court where a custodial sentence may be
passed. These cases might normally involve a degree of willful dangerousness and negligence due to excessive
risk taking that causes death. The remainder, if charged, generally involves token sentences, passed in a
magistrate’s court: a fine and penalty points. These cases involve factors of carelessness due to lack of driver
concentration, or thoughtlessness. There is, also, some degree of crossover where a driver is charged with the
lesser offence due to lack of evidence for a more serious charge.
It is this, and the leniency of sentences passed for more serious charges that devalues life, brings the criminal
justice system into disrepute.
We say that in all of these offences being consulted on, even at the lower culpability level, there must always be
the threat of a custodial sentence for the convicted driver. We, also, believe that there is, largely, irrelevant
mitigation where there has been loss of life, and that it is being overly prescribed.
2
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
Mitigating and Aggravating factors
REMORSE
This consultation is a response to evolving awareness of culpability. In the future, we will
wonder at how ignorantly we value the lives of lost generations to drivers. In the meantime,
we can but try to do better with the knowledge that we have.
Remorse should be removed from the list of mitigating factors where deaths are caused by
drivers, particularly with pleas of not guilty. Only a clod, and there are a few, would not show
remorse for killing another human being, in avoidable circumstances, when his freedoms are
threatened. But for the bereaved, remorse comes too late, particularly with a plea of not
guilty, and is instrumental in reducing convicted drivers’ sentences, whether pleas have been
guilty or not guilty, and are, notoriously, lenient, anyway. It is the cause of deep resentment
and distrust and loss of faith in a justice system that often weights hearsay defences of
demeanour and previous good character and driver record, while daring to stigmatize victims’
incredulity, hopelessness and anger, as vengeful clamour and campaign.
In contested cases, it is arguable that “remorse” is a heaven-sent tool or ploy of convicted
drivers to convince juries of their innocence - absolving them of their responsibility - when
scrapping for their freedom.
The courts should work with the enforcers of law and road safety education programmes to
seek to turn around driver attitudes. It can never have been the intention of law, surely, to
contrive ways to ease culpability and responsibility.
Lack of remorse on a plea of not guilty should be an aggravating factor and should add to
sentence.
Death in Built up Areas, in the vicinity of Schools
Death of a vulnerable road user.
Deaths of pedestrians walking on pavements
Causing deaths in the above areas should be sternly viewed by the courts as aggravating
features that should add to the overall sentence of convicted drivers. Towns and the vicinity
of schools are highly vulnerable areas for pedestrians and should be protected from
dangerous drivers. These areas are clearly signposted with maximum speed limits. It must
be a fundamental requirement that drivers respect the right of way and priority that
pedestrians have on pavements, at crossings. If we are each to have a care of another, in
trust, when the trust is breached the courts must treat the behaviour as an aggravation. Why
should proven dangerous drivers be dealt any more leniently?
Question: Why is knowingly driving on pavement not a specific aggravating factor
where an innocent is caused to die?
3
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
Questions
1-13
Answer 1
No. The realization and expectation that a custodial sentence will be passed, even at that
bottom end, should be more certain.
For charges of Death by Dangerous Driving, and other charges of this gravity, the threshold
breached will generally mean that the driver’s illegal action is one of excessive, gross risk
taking, and/or that the action is willful. Therefore, the death caused is not fortuitous but
predictable. Therefore, a custodial sentence must be passed even in the lowest range.
No other form of retribution or deterrent is satisfactory.
Where a driver’s dangerous actions result in no death, this is fortuitous.
Answer 2
No. We believe that the starting point of 18 months will result in token custodial sentences
which will send out the wrong signal to drivers.
In the first of the four categories, it is given that for “momentary dangerous driving / error of
judgment / short period of bad driving, with no aggravating factors, the sentencing range is
to be from 12 months to 2 years imprisonment with the starting point of 18 months. How
would the driver, in a case falling into this category, receive a sentence of two years? Is the
panel implying that a driver obtains an initial discount just for not having any aggravating
factors? !!
Where a driver incurs an aggravating factor associated with the Sentencing Council’s
‘Overarching Principles’, the category for this convicted driver would surely fall into the next
range up.
Therefore, the starting point in the lowest category must be two years, where the sentence
should not be mitigated to mere tokenism. For this type of offence only a custodial sentence
will satisfy the sentencing requirements of retribution and deterrent. Then some degree of
confidence from the public in the Criminal Justice System might be retained, even restored.
Answer 3
No. The starting point is too low and is treated less harshly than it would be in death by
dangerous driving where it is treated as an aggravating feature.
A driver’s ability to drive is effected by alcohol and / or drugs and the consequences are 4
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
highly publicized, at great expense to the public purse (The Government THINK Campaign,
amongst others). The levels by which the statutory permissible levels are breached are
Answer 3 contd
irrelevant to the victims. What is relevant is that the victim is dead, killed by someone who
should not have been driving and had he not been driving, the victim would still be alive.
It is imperative that the courts take a tough stance.
It is conceded that public perception of driver culpability, for this type of offence, will be
influenced by how much over the statutory drink / drug limits a driver is.
For the lowest category, [a driver just above the alcohol limit, or who has been found to have
consumed a minimal amount of drugs and no other aggravating features], the starting point
should be 4 years. This would retain some degree of consistency with the sentence passed
for death by dangerous driving where a key aggravating feature is alcohol / drugs related.
REMORSE
See Introduction. How is remorse relevant where a driver sets out to drink and drive?
Answer 4
Yes. Failing to supply a breath test / blood sample without good reason implies that the
accused wishes to withhold evidence that could incriminate him.
Further, a driver failing to stop or who leaves the scene of a crash does so in order not to
supply a specimen that could incriminate him and therefore, should, when apprehended, fall
into the most serious category.
Answer 5
Yes. Another factor which should be included is when death occurs in built up areas and in
the vicinity of schools.
It is common knowledge that death occurring in these circumstances are caused by drivers
who fail to keep a good look out and are negligent in their driving. Vulnerable road users,
pedestrians on pavements and crossings, children, especially, must have their rights of way
safeguarded.
Answer 6
Remorse is an inappropriate consideration in mitigation especially where there is an
aggravating feature and the case is contested and the driver is found guilty. In fact, if there is
a lack of remorse and the offender is found guilty, this should add to his sentence.
5
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
Answers 7
We do not agree with fines and community order of any level for deaths by careless driving
without the threat of a custodial sentence within each category
There has to be a deterrent signal where a death has been caused by negligence. A driver’s
mind must be focused on driving. We demand this focus of train drivers and pilots, of
average corporate health and safety standards. Why should we require any less focus and
commitment to duty from car drivers?
For an offence of careless or inconsiderate driving with no more than 1 aggravating factor,
the range should be a High Community order to 12 months jail.
The next category involving 2 aggravating features should have a range of 12 months to 2
years with a starting point of 18 months.
Answer 8
The starting point for the lowest category should be 6 months jail to give the courts scope to
deal with offences termed not momentary and where one aggravating factor exists.
Answer 9
Yes.
Answer 10
Who decides what an emergency is and what standard of evidence will be required to
establish a genuine emergency? Is the Panel not being over prescriptive and setting a
mitigation too far.
Answer 11
We would prefer drivers to drive clean of any level of drugs or alcohol because they do
influence the quality of focus and alters attitudes. The law currently gives a threshold. If a
driver surpasses the limit, is just over it, he must face the full whack of the law, If he is under
it, he is lucky. It is an area that requires stronger legislation.
6
CONSULTATION PAPER ON CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING OFFENCES
19/4/2007
GALLI-ATKINSON
Answer 12
There is no excuse for this category of driver to be on the road and such drivers should be
excluded by example.
There has to be a threat of a custodial sentence because it is a serious matter to take a life
and to do so with the intent of driving without a license, cannot be viewed with compassion.
There should not be three categories, only one, and the range should start from six months
to 2 years with a starting point of 12 months.
Answer 13
No. We are all equal before the law and those who kill and are convicted should be
punished equally.
7