Killer drivers to face longer jail terms?

See

http://www.bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=5210

"Thursday 3rd February 2005
Killer drivers to face longer jail terms
Government proposals revealed today will see the probable creation of two
new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death while
being disqualified or unlicensed. Both would carry five year jail terms."

It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this.

Cheers, helen s


--
--
www.ccbreckland.org.uk
--

Helen C Simmons wrote:
See

http://www.bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=5210

"Thursday 3rd February 2005
Killer drivers to face longer jail terms
Government proposals revealed today will see the probable creation of
two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death
while being disqualified or unlicensed. Both would carry five year
jail terms."

It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this.

Given as how they already have an offence of causing death by dangerous
driving, which is rarely used, I somehow doubt it...

/cynic

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

"Dave Larrington" writes:

Helen C Simmons wrote:
See

http://www.bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=5210

"Thursday 3rd February 2005
Killer drivers to face longer jail terms
Government proposals revealed today will see the probable creation of
two new offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death
while being disqualified or unlicensed. Both would carry five year
jail terms."

It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this.

Given as how they already have an offence of causing death by dangerous
driving, which is rarely used, I somehow doubt it...

Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that
you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving
"dangerously". One might hope that these new offences (assuming they
ever come into existence) will lead to rather more prosecutions since
it's easier to show that someone was driving "carelessly" or without a
licence.

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message
...
Given as how they already have an offence of causing death by dangerous
driving, which is rarely used, I somehow doubt it...

/cynic


Sadly, I think there's a high probability that you are correct.

Cheers, helen s

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:08:07 -0000, "Helen C Simmons"
wrote in message
:

Killer drivers to face longer jail terms

Killer drivers to face jail terms at all would be a good start...

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:51:13 GMT, Paul Rudin
wrote in message :

Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that
you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving
"dangerously".

And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to
interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning
that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than
dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher
charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are
certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Brings back painful memories this posting. About 15 years ago one of the
best cyclists in Wales and a member of our club was wiped out by a woman
racing a car on a dual carriageway. She overtook the car she was racing on
the inside on the hard shoulder and killed one really nice human being out
training on his bike - married, two young children and his whole life ahead
of him. The c*** that killed him was fined, licence endorsed and banned from
driving for a while - she never went to prison.

I only wished she could have been there at the graveside when he was buried
as all of us were in tears and feeling very bad. Nah, that's stupid she
probably didn't give a damn in the end cos daddy was loaded and got her the
best liar (sorry barrister) money could buy.

Yea - it still hurts.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:51:13 GMT, Paul Rudin
wrote in message :


Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that
you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving
"dangerously".


And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to
interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning
that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than
dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher
charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are
certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty.

This notion that the CPS must only prosecute for a single offence came
up a while ago, without any authoritive citation of where it came from.

One possibility that looks like it would fit your suggestion is that the
CPS is interpreting the Human Rights Act 1998 that way. This enacts the
European Convention. The Convention is a Schedule to the Act, and
includes the right to a fair trial - Article 6.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1

However, it does not explicitly say anything, AFAIK, about only
prosecuting one offence. It might be that the Article 6(3)(a) is being
onerously interpreted -

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum
rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands
and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

.... but I'm speculating.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that
you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving
"dangerously".

And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to
interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning
that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than
dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher
charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are
certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty.


Which seems reasonable. I don't think we want a situation where the charge
is "whatever you can think of your honour". I don't know the specifics but I
imagine a case charged as careless, proved, but deemed by the judge to be
dangerous would attract the top penalty for careless. Do the penalties
overlap at all?

John

Eatmorepies wrote:

Part of the problem with "causing death by dangerous driving" is that
you've got to convince a jury that someone was driving
"dangerously".

And another part, as I understand it, is that the CPS have chosen to
interpret an EU directive regarding clarity of charging as meaning
that you can only prosecute for a single offence, rather than
dangerous /and/ careless, letting the court decide whether the higher
charge is proven - which means they go for the offence they are
certain will stand, even if it has a lower maximum penalty.



Which seems reasonable. I don't think we want a situation where the charge
is "whatever you can think of your honour". I don't know the specifics but I
imagine a case charged as careless, proved, but deemed by the judge to be
dangerous would attract the top penalty for careless. Do the penalties
overlap at all?

Barely (in principle you could get a negligible sentence for DBDD, but
rarely). But can you imagine a good reason why a clearly careless,
borderline dangerous case should not be prosecuted on both charges?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/