Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
|
Ms Keeble: I should like to clarify that when I referred to gross carelessness, I was not referring to what is in the Bill. I was talking about our common-sense understanding that there are different types of carelessness, and about how that is translated into legislation. Mr. Carmichael: The difficulty is that when one speaks of gross carelessness and degrees of carelessness, the lawyers start to get interested. They start to ask whether gross carelessness is something beyond what is required for carelessness—is it dangerous or is it something that, because it is carelessness, is already covered by the clause? Dr. Iddon: I should like to remind the Committee of the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher) referred on Second Reading, a case that received widespread publicity in all the national media. The case was that of three-year-old Levi Bleasdale, who was struck by a hit-and-run driver last year. The gentleman was charged with careless driving. Not only the family of Levi Bleasdale, but the whole country, felt that that driver should have had a custodial sentence. That is exactly what we are trying to introduce, and we should remember families like
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful for that intervention. A custodial sentence would, of course, be available in that situation, because failing to stop at the scene of an accident and thereafter failing to report it to the police are both species of criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for which custodial sentences are already available and frequently applied. It is important in dealing with such a case not to let the understandable emotion involved blind us to the fact that other provisions in the Road Traffic Act and common law would impose custodial sentences if they were properly imposed and dealt with. I have a lot of sympathy with what the Government seek to do. However, I am not entirely in accordance with their views on how it should be done. More work is required and I hope that at some stage in the near future we will have a full and proper objective assessment of the law, perhaps by the Law Commission, that will allow a proper reworking of the Act. It is now almost 20 years old; the last Road Traffic Act to be revisited was 26 years old. We are approaching that threshold. As others have said, if we are to make changes it is important that they are workable. What we have at the moment is just short of that. Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I apologise for not being in Committee for much of the debate this morning. I was delayed on unavoidable constituency business. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to seek appropriate punishment for those who cause death on our roads by driving below recognised standards of competence. We support the trickle-down, so that if they are not found guilty of a more serious offence they can be found guilty of a lesser offence. I have reservations about the clause and whether it is the way to proceed. I am concerned at the attempt to impose a five-year, or indeed any, custodial sentence for the offence of careless driving. I hear what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East has said, but the representations made to us have shown little support for the clause from the legal profession or the judiciary. The provision has arisen because the CPS has failed to prosecute many drivers for what they should be prosecuted for, namely the offence of dangerous driving, and because of the “there but for the grace of God go I” attitude of a number of juries. The Levi Bleasdale case, which the hon. Gentleman rightly cited and which horrified many, ought to have been prosecuted for what it was: dangerous driving. The criminal may have been caught by hit and run, but he ought to have been prosecuted for dangerous driving. That has been a real problem and I am not convinced that the Government’s solution will get round it. Our amendment tries to ensure that we have a proper way to deal with drivers who have killed. Column Number: 181 The clause is contrary to legal principle. Nowhere in English law is there a provision for a custodial sentence for an offence that does not go beyond carelessness. We provide custodial sentences for intent and civil redress for carelessness. The provision will undoubtedly cause a huge amount of injustice. I heard briefly what the hon. Member for Northampton, North said about the definition of gross carelessness and the graduating scale. The difficulty is the ability to differentiate. Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a novel principle in English law. He may well be right, but can one not receive a custodial sentence for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974? A breach of the requirement to maintain a safe system of work could be accidental. Stephen Hammond: My understanding is that that requires deliberate neglect rather than carelessness; I am happy to be advised by the hon. Gentleman as a lawyer, which I am not, but I will certainly look into that. The proper way to deal with drivers who have killed is surely for the CPS to be more careful about its charging level and to use the offences appropriate to the actions of the driver. That is the intention behind our amendments. By reintroducing the recklessness clause, we would set a higher test, specifying more closely and widening the definition of dangerous driving. That should enable the CPS to prosecute more correctly, and to resist the temptation to charge a person with the lowest offence possible in order to secure a conviction, and go for the offence for which they should be prosecuted. 12.15 pmMs Keeble: The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that to use the definitions “far below” and “below” is wrong, but he proposes to use “far below” and “significantly below”. Surely, there is a much bigger problem with those phrases. Stephen Hammond: I think not. “Significantly below” clearly gives a much more measurable scope to the offence. We have tried to ensure that the CPS does not continually go for the lowest available option, and that it should prosecute for what it should prosecute, namely dangerous or reckless driving on the roads. I want briefly to say a few words about new clause 24, which is partly a probing new clause, and which will, I suspect, be lost in much of what is said today. We proposed it in the hope that the Minister would consider bringing it forward at a later stage if we are unable to insert it into the Bill today. We have been asked to address this issue by a number of police officers who have experienced a particular problem in the daily execution of their duty. They ask the driver of a vehicle—be it a mechanically propelled vehicle, cycle or car—to stop, and the driver pretends to slow down but then rushes off dangerously, causing hazard to other road users. We want there to be a specific offence for failing to stop and then driving dangerously
Dr. Ladyman: Confusing stuff; if members of the Committee are confused about this, they should wait until we get to furious driving. I shall start with the question that is the simplest to resolve, which was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East, who asked why the penalty will be only six months in Scotland, but 12 months in England and Wales. That is because in England, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, we have raised the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12, while in Scotland, sheriff courts can only impose sentences of up to six months. It is for Scottish Parliament to address the penalties available to the Scottish courts. That brings us to the substantive debate. First, I acknowledge the constructive tone of hon. Members’ comments in disagreeing with the Government’s position, which was set out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. My hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Bolton, South-East also made important contributions to the debate. All three of them have campaigned on this matter for a long time. I acknowledge their contributions to the debate. This is a matter on which reasonable people can have reasonable disagreement. It is not a black and white issue, and I acknowledge the concerns of Opposition Members, and those that were raised in the House of Lords. However, with the greatest respect to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who said that he still has concerns about the Government’s position and that he wanted further work to be done, the Transport Committee has reported on the matter, and we have had a consultation called the “Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving”. The benefit of being a Liberal Democrat is that they can always ask for more reports and do more work, but however many reviews and Select Committee reports there are, the Government sooner or later have to take a decision and act on it. Mr. Knight: For the first and perhaps the last time, I rise to defend the Liberal Democrat position. Some of what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland had to say carried merit. Is this not one of those subjects on which we would have benefited from using the Special Standing Committee procedure, as it would have allowed us to call witnesses? Dr. Ladyman: That might have been true if it was not for the fact that the Transport Select Committee presumably called witnesses, that it investigated the subject and made recommendations. I am a great fan of the Special Standing Committee procedure. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Shropshire and I were members of the first such Committee, which dealt with the Food Standards Agency. It was the first opportunity that I had to work with the hon. Gentleman, and I enjoyed it very much. Column Number: 183 I agree that that procedure has a place, but we are now at the end of the process, following a long public review, the work of the Transport Select Committee and campaigns by many organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East mentioned SCID; and many others have been campaigning for a long time. Sooner or later, however, the Government have to take a decision, draw a line in the sand and say, “This is how we are going to change the law.” It has been acknowledged by all sides that there is a problem with the law as it stands. That is not debatable. We are dealing with what my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East and for Stafford have called a cliff. That is exactly what it is; a huge cliff between the offences of dangerous and careless driving. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said that not enough people have been prosecuted for dangerous driving. The problem is that it is very difficult to prove that someone is guilty of dangerous driving. If it cannot be proved, the only charge left is careless driving, and people associate that with low penalties. We have been talking about what constitutes careless driving. The thrust of the Conservative amendments is to try to define more clearly how various offences should be judged, but I do not believe that juries cannot determine what is careless driving. Juries find it very easy to determine what is careless driving; their difficult is having to decide when careless driving becomes dangerous. The debate is at the top end of the spectrum, not the bottom. I do not believe that anyone would be convicted were it clear that the sunlight had unexpectedly caught their eye and blinded them for a moment. I doubt whether anyone would be charged under such circumstances. Juries are composed of sensible women and men, many of them drivers, who can easily determine what is careless; but they have problems at the upper level, when trying to decide whether driving might be dangerous. Mr. Paterson: I entirely agree with the Minister. That is exactly why we framed our amendments as we did. Throughout this debate, horrific cases have been cited. I looked again at the cases that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East mentioned on Second Reading, and I contend that they would now be appropriately addressed by the two new offences that we propose, of reckless or far below at 14 years and dangerous or significantly below at seven years. Perhaps I am being a little precious, but the Committee has concentrated too much on my suggestion that being blinded could be careless. I totally agree that there is a problem further up the scale, and we have gone into the matter in some depth to try to address exactly that problem. Dr. Ladyman: I do not for a minute question that the hon. Gentleman believes passionately that he has come up with the solution to the problem; I just do not for a second think that it would work. If he wants to intervene on me, perhaps he will give me an example of
We have clear guidance on what constitutes carelessness; it may have been the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen)—I cannot remember—who asked what it might consist of. First, of course, it is context-dependent. What would constitute carelessness in someone driving past the school gates at 3.30 pm when all the children come out could be different from what would constitute carelessness on a clear, empty road. That is where juries’ common sense will contribute. The Crown Prosecution Service already provides guidance about what types of case it will charge with carelessness. Examples of driving that they believe amount to driving without due care and attention include overtaking on the inside, driving inappropriately close to another vehicle, driving through a red light and emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle. All sorts of case law and common practice can help us to define carelessness, and no driver needs to fear that a momentary lapse of judgment or something unexpected that they could not possibly predict will have an impact on their driving and that they will subsequently be prosecuted for causing death by careless driving. I believe that there is much evidence that the offence in question needs to be put on the statute book. We could probably debate it all day and come no nearer to agreeing. I do not believe that the solution put forward by the Conservative Front Bench—although it is, I acknowledge, a laudable effort—would make things easier. I remind the Conservative Front Bench that we withdrew the term “reckless driving”—I think that it was abolished in 1991—because recklessness as a definition did not work in the context of road traffic offences, although it is a term used in other branches of the law. It would be bizarre to conclude now that we should replace it in road traffic law. It is right that magistrates courts should have the opportunity to give custodial sentences; otherwise some people will plead guilty to offences in the magistrates court so as to face a much less severe, non-custodial sentence than they might in the Crown court. I do not believe that I shall ever convince Opposition Members, or that they will suddenly see the light on the road to Damascus, but we clearly have common ground in seeing a need to fix the current law. The Government have come up with a solution that will offer people fairness if they face a charge, but will also provide justice to people who have lost someone. Mr. Paterson: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he address one of our big concerns—that the whole offence is consequent on the consequences of the action, and not the intention? 12.30 pmDr. Ladyman: The seriousness of the offence will of course have to be judged by the court when sentence is decided on. However, the consequence of the action is already a factor in determining legal proceedings. In my home county of Kent, a recent robbery was
The simple fact is that the seriousness of the consequences is a factor. [Interruption.] I know what the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is going to say, so he does not need to say it. The courts will have to balance the seriousness of the act of carelessness, the extent to which the act was culpable, the level to which it fell below the standard that we expect of a driver and the fact that as a consequence of the act, an individual has died. I do not believe that that is wrong; I believe that the public expect it. Mr. Carmichael: This issue is central to the debate. Will the Minister confirm that the sentence will continue to be imposed according to the standard of driving exhibited and within the range put down by Parliament? As well as the new offence, has he considered whether the ordinary section 3 offence would be consistent with careless and inconsiderate driving and carry a custodial sentence? Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not expect somebody who is charged with causing death by careless driving automatically to receive a custodial sentence simply because an individual has died. It will be for the courts to decide how far their carelessness fell below the standard required. I struggle to understand why Opposition Members are so worried about that. It seems clear that judges and juries are in a good position to make those judgments. They do it all the time. The individual will have to explain the circumstances of their carelessness and what was going through their mind, and the judge will make a determination based on that. The difficulty that juries have is determining not what is careless, nor the level of carelessness, but the difference between carelessness and dangerous driving. That is why it has always been so difficult to prove an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, and why the offence under discussion will almost always be used as an alternative verdict when somebody is charged with causing death by dangerous driving. I have no doubt that the number of cases will be limited. It will be up to the Crown Prosecution Service to use the offence when it is the primary charge on the indictment, but in my view, it will normally be used in an alternative verdict. Stephen Hammond: I was listening to the Minister carefully. He reiterated his point that previously, juries had difficulty deciding what was dangerous and what
Dr. Ladyman: It would be a matter for judges to graduate the level of carelessness; the jury would determine that somebody was careless, somebody died and that the individual was therefore guilty. The judge would then use sentencing guidelines—and the untold reservoirs of wisdom that we are told all judges have—to determine the seriousness of the offence and the sentence to impose. I do not see that that is any different from the judgments that we expect judges to make when they sentence under any other area of law. Mr. Carmichael: I freely admit that I would probably know the answer to this question if I had read the Bill more carefully. As things stand, automatic alternatives are implied in the Road Traffic Act. For section 2, there is an automatic alternative available to the court to convict under section 3. Is it envisaged and, in fact, provided for, that there should be an automatic alternative open to the court if a charge is made under section 1? Dr. Ladyman: I believe that that is the case, but I will correct that answer later if it is not. Indeed, we deal in other parts of the Bill with the possibility of manslaughter being an alternative verdict for more serious cases under other charges. Rosemary McKenna: Will my hon. Friend comment on my question about the charge of causing serious injury by dangerous and careless, or careless driving? Dr. Ladyman: I apologise for forgetting that my hon. Friend asked that question. I am not sure that I have a terribly convincing answer for her. This is an imperfect world, and we have to draw lines somewhere. One of the reasons why we rejected the Opposition’s amendment on recklessness is because it has been recognised that we need to make the criteria available to the courts as objective as possible. The old crime of reckless driving involved a subjective decision that we needed to get out of the legal system. Likewise, when we come to whether there should be another offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, we come to subjective decisions about what constitutes serious injury, whereas, of course, there is no doubt whatsoever about the difference between death and lesser injuries. I have to confess that, last but not least, there is the issue of resources—it comes down to good old-fashioned money. If we were to allow custodial sentences for serious injury, many more people would be sent to prison. That would require many more prison places, which would require us to build more prisons or to let out some people who are already in prison. Unfortunately, we have to make some dirty compromises. That is why I say that the explanation will not perfectly satisfy her. Column Number: 187 The offence of causing death by careless driving is clear and objective, and it closes at least one existing loophole. I imagine that she and other hon. Friends will continue to campaign for a further change to the law, and I look forward to those debates. I have probably said enough. I hope that I have answered Members’ questions. I doubt that I have convinced Opposition Members, but I have no doubt whatever that my hon. Friends were convinced even before I started to speak and will support Government amendment No. 1, resist the Opposition amendments and support the clause standing part. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5. [Division No. 5] AYES Iddon, Dr. BrianKeeble, Ms Sally Kidney, Mr. David Ladyman, Dr. Stephen McFadden, Mr. Pat McKenna, Rosemary Osborne, Sandra Roy, Mr. Frank Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
NOES Bellingham, Mr. HenryHammond, Stephen Knight, rh Mr. Greg Paterson, Mr. Owen Scott, Mr. Lee Question accordingly agreed to. Mr. Paterson: Would it be correct for us to take amendment No. 63 and all our new clauses together, Sir Nicholas? The Chairman: I am advised that the hon. Gentleman could move for a vote on amendment No. 63. Is that his wish? Mr. Paterson: Yes. Amendment proposed: No. 63, in clause 20, page 24, line 39, column 4, leave out
and insert ‘a fine’—[Mr. Paterson.] The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9. [Division No. 6] AYES Bellingham, Mr. HenryHammond, Stephen Knight, rh Mr. Greg Paterson, Mr. Owen Scott, Mr. Lee
NOES Iddon, Dr. BrianKeeble, Ms Sally Kidney, Mr. David Ladyman, Dr. Stephen McFadden, Mr. Pat McKenna, Rosemary Osborne, Sandra Roy, Mr. Frank Slaughter, Mr. Andrew Question accordingly negatived. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5. [Division No.
AYES Carmichael, Mr. AlistairIddon, Dr. Brian Keeble, Ms Sally Kidney, Mr. David Ladyman, Dr. Stephen McFadden, Mr. Pat McKenna, Rosemary Osborne, Sandra Rowen, Paul Roy, Mr. Frank Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
NOES Bellingham, Mr. HenryHammond, Stephen Knight, rh Mr. Greg Paterson, Mr. Owen Scott, Mr. Lee Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers 12.45 pmStephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 21, page 25, leave out lines 22 and 23. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 91, in clause 21, page 25, line 28, column 2, leave out ‘unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured’ and insert ‘unlicensed or disqualified’. No. 93, in clause 21, page 25, line 33, column 3, leave out ‘summarily’. No. 94, in clause 21, page 25, column 4, leave out lines 33 to 39. No. 92, in clause 21, page 25, line 35, column 2, leave out ‘unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured’ and insert ‘unlicensed or disqualified’. Stephen Hammond: Before I came to the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire and I visited the Minister, who was generous with his time. He gave us a preliminary briefing on the Bill and some explanations to our questions. We were uncertain about the exact intention behind clause 21, and, if I understood correctly, the Minister gave us the following explanation: if a person is in, or driving, a car that is uninsured, unlicensed or while disqualified, and that car is in an accident that results in the death of another, whether or not any causal behaviour was attached to the car or driver, that person would be charged with causing death. The Bill effectively says that the death would not have occurred had that vehicle not been on the road, and that therefore the driver or passenger has caused death simply by being in the car. My hon. Friends and I were slightly perplexed by that explanation, as too were those from whom we took legal advice. Our amendments are part probing and part principled. At the end of the debate, should we have been reassured by the Minister that either some of our misgivings are misconceived or ill
Perhaps I might explain my misgivings with two examples. First, let us take the case of a hard-working Member of Parliament who represents, say, a Scottish constituency, and who, on a Monday, drives to either the train station of the airport, parks his car, travels to London by train or by air and has a hard-working week in London—as I am sure we all do working for the benefit of constituents. On the Thursday, the MP flies home and notices that his insurance expired the day before, resolves in his own mind to renew the insurance in the morning and drives home. On the way home, a group of youths leaving a local pub overtake another car, collide with the MP’s car, hit a wall and spin out of control, causing the death of one of the passengers. Under the Bill, the MP would be charged with causing that death, even thought he did not cause the death, he did not drive carelessly or even dangerously, and there was no intent. If anything he was the victim of the accident, yet he would be charged if the Bill is not amended. At the moment, it is common practice—as I am sure that the Minister will concede—for the police, in such circumstances, and insurance companies, to allow at least a fortnight, but in some cases, up to a month, for insurance renewal. Equally, it is similar practice to do so for car licences. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 29 March 2006 |