| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Miller: I have been following the debate with great interest in view of my role in RoadPeace. Will my hon. Friend re-examine the March 1996 Law Commission report on involuntary manslaughter? It may provide the answer to some of the searching questions asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton).
Mr. Clarke: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he and RoadPeace have been doing to raise these issues. He makes a serious suggestion which needs active consideration.
Within the current framework of law, the CPS role is to decide how to view the case. To do this, it must look at the evidence and decide whether sufficient evidence to establish guilt of a particular offence exists. It is a matter for the CPS, which is independent of government, and it is not appropriate for me or any Minister to comment on or interfere in the decisions on the charges to bring in a particular case.
The Attorney-General is involved if there is unduly lenient sentencing which could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. Courts do not always make full use of their powers. The Attorney-General has powers to refer cases of indictable offences, including causing death by dangerous driving, to the Court of Appeal where it appears that the sentence was unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal then has power
to increase the sentence. That must be done within 28 days of the last sentence in the case being passed. The Court of Appeal can impose a higher sentence only if it finds that the sentence was unduly lenient.
I now come to sentencing guidelines. Obviously, there is a wide range of practice across the country on these matters. The Government are keen to promote consistency in sentencing. It is only right that offenders should be treated equitably and that inappropriate regional variations in sentencing should be avoided wherever possible. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established provisions which place a statutory duty on the Court of Appeal whenever it receives an appeal against sentence to consider whether it should frame a new sentencing guideline or revise an existing guideline.
The Act established a sentencing advisory panel to provide advice on such guidelines to the Court of Appeal. The panel will provide the court with statistical information about existing sentencing and consult a range of interested parties. The panel can act in three sets of circumstances: when advised by the Court of Appeal that it intends to frame a guideline, at its own instigation, and when the Home Secretary directs it to provide views to the court. This is an important development since the 1998 Act, designed to establish consistency of sentencing. It is a matter for consideration whether such sentences might be examined by the panel.
The Government are responsible for ensuring that the courts have the powers that they need to deal with the cases before them. We believe that the law should provide appropriate sanctions to enable the courts to deal severely with instances of bad driving that are worse than careless and in which the offender bears a greater responsibility for his actions.
Within the broad statutory limit set by Parliament, individual sentences are a matter for the courts alone, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Of course, the independence of our courts is an important principle. It is not appropriate, therefore, for me to interfere in specific cases and sentences passed in particular circumstances. However, I believe that Parliament and the public are entitled to expect the courts to impose long and heavy sentences in serious cases.
The maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or causing death while under the influence of drink or drugs is 10 years' imprisonment. That was doubled from five years as recently as 1993. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving is two years' imprisonment. Careless driving carries a maximum fine of £2,500 and an obligatory endorsement of the offender's driving licence. I can well understand why, when someone causes a death by careless driving and a fine of this kind is imposed, real despair and anger is felt among the families concerned. It is an understandable response, which I share.
The Government decided to conduct a review of penalties in road traffic offences, which is taking place. It will include consideration of the maximum penalty for
causing death by dangerous driving, and we shall deal with some of the issues discussed. The provisions will, I hope, lead to more comprehensive sentencing guidelines, which will ensure greater consistency in sentencing. The offence of causing death by dangerous driving could be one of the offences considered in this way.
The Government are determined to address these issues very seriously as a matter of priority. They represent an important element in public confidence in the criminal justice system, and need to be properly addressed. I assure the House that the opinions expressed in the contributions to this evening's debate will be fully considered in the review.
Lord Whitty today announced a new speed camera funding system, with eight pilot schemes in Essex, Northampton, Thames valley, Nottingham, south Wales, Cleveland, Lincolnshire and Strathclyde. It will establish a much more coherent and effective regime for testing for people who are speeding, and will be able to identify and, we hope, deter speeding. That is an important and positive development, which will inhibit the reckless and speedy driving that is sometimes the immediate cause of the accidents that cause the tragedies which have been discussed.
Finally, I want to mention research. Road traffic law should provide a framework for safe driving, lay down clear standards for driver behaviour and deter drivers from breaching those standards. The Transport Research Laboratory of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is carrying out research on behalf of DETR into the way in which bad driving cases proceed through the criminal justice system. It is the intention of the research to obtain evidence as to whether there is sufficiently clear guidance on the law and its purpose, and how that affects the choice of penalty.
The researchers are looking in detail at the decisions taken by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. We expect to have the results next year, when the Government will be in a better position to judge changes in this area of law and its operation.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham secured this debate. The Government are fully in sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others during the debate. My Department and I will continue to work with colleagues from other Departments to ensure that we get our policy right in tackling these important and serious issues. I am glad to have had an opportunity to respond to the debate, and I am delighted to assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall receive a delegation to discuss the matter more widely and will continue to meet and discuss the issue with a wide range of different organisations.
In moving on these matters, it is exceptionally important to be in line with the body of public opinion. Law should properly reflect what people feel. That is why this debate has been important. The whole range of views expressed will be fully taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |