Clause 20 - Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Labour)
The fact that so many Members want to contribute to this debate shows how important the clause is. I welcome the Bill; I have followed its passage and I hope that we will get a landmark piece of legislation on road safety.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain the difference between the custodial sentence recommended for Scotland and that recommended for England and Wales? I am sure that he will do so in his response to the debate.
I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for North Shropshire. A custodial sentence for careless driving absolutely must be in the legislation, principally but not only because the current situation causes so much grief to bereaved families, who believe that the process adds to their pain. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and the important point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Careless driving is already an offence. We are discussing the sentencing policy for that offence.
In April 1999, I secured an Adjournment debate in the House on road death charging policy. Since I was elected in 1997, I have been involved in that issue. On 18 September 1998, Steven Dekker, my constituent and near neighbour, celebrated his 24th birthday with his family and Gail, his girlfriend of six years. On Saturday 19 September, Gail and Steven spent the day together in Glasgow, shopping, enjoying being together and planning their future. At 6 pm, on a bright, clear evening, as they drove home to Cumbernauld, a van being driven the wrong way down a single carriageway, hit them head on, killing Steven and injuring Gail.
The collision occurred as Steven came round a bend on a one-way single carriageway, with no chance of taking avoiding action. Of course, the family and the local community were devastated, but the legal process actually added to their pain. The Crown Office decided to prosecute Andrew Wilson, the man who killed Steven Dekker, not with death by dangerous driving, but with the lesser charge of careless driving. The proceedings in court lasted 15 minutes, and Andrew Wilson was fined £750 and banned from driving for one year. Since that day, the family have pursued the case positively, with Mrs. Dekker now playing a major role in road safety organisations.
At that time, the thrust of my argument was that the charge of careless driving was wrong, and about charging policy in general. The police prepared a charge of dangerous driving, but that was downgraded to careless driving by the procurator fiscal’s office. The clause changes that argument, and we heard last week’s discussions on the matter.
Today, I spoke to Margaret Dekker, who was, of course, following the passage of the Bill. She believes that the Government have got it just about right, and that a custodial sentence is crucial. She has welcomed the whole process of the Bill, and asked that we congratulate the Minister, because the process of creating the Bill, including consultation, has been done properly. All of that has made road safety organisations feel that their work over many years particularly in relation to custodial sentencing has been heard. Those points have been made continually by RoadPeace campaigners and not just in relation to one or two high-profile cases.
On behalf of SCID—the Scottish campaign against irresponsible drivers, which supports victims of road crashes, Mrs. Dekker wrote:
“The maximum penalties proposed by the Government are five years for both of these offences. The present lack of such offences and the limited sentencing power of the courts are causing an aggravated grief for bereaved families and a resulting lack of confidence in the criminal justice system they look to for support ... The present maximum penalty available to the courts for ‘Careless driving’ is £2,500 fine, a discretionary disqualification and 3-9 penalty points. While sentencing is always a matter for the judge/sheriff based on the available evidence, we would envisage the proposed maximum penalty of 5 years, proposed in the Bill, would bridge the much needed sentencing gap between “dangerous” and “careless” and would give the judge/sheriff the scope to reflect the gravity of the carelessness.”
The hon. Member for North Shropshire has argued that carelessness should not be punished by a custodial sentence, but problems arise when the charging authorities decide whether to make the charge careless driving or dangerous driving. That is when it is important that both charges carry a custodial sentence.