The role of the CPS
59. Many of our witnesses were also critical of the
role of the CPS.[52]
Some of this criticism was linked to the law on traffic offences,
which is beyond the CPS's control. But there were also criticisms
of the way in which the CPS carried out its responsibilities.
Representatives of RoadPeace were concerned that the CPS would
generally tend to use charges of careless driving rather than
of dangerous driving to increase the chances of conviction.[53]
This meant that the penalties were inappropriately low. Those
who had been involved in serious cases criticised the lack of
explanation the CPS gave for its choice of charges.[54]
There was also criticism that the CPS lawyers lacked the expertise
to challenge the expert witnesses brought by insurance companies.[55]
60. The Road Traffic Act 1988 distinguishes between
careless driving, which occurs when the standard of driving is
"below what would be expected of a competent and careful
driver" and dangerous driving, where the standard of driving
is "far below" what would be expected. There is no statutory
definition of what is meant by these terms, and so the Charging
Standards agreed between the police and the CPS are extremely
influential in deciding what charges will be brought. The Director
of Public Prosecutions told us that a new set of Charging Standards
was being drawn up, but they have not yet been published.
61. The existing charging standards certainly provide
ammunition for those who believe that drivers are expected to
display lower standards of care than other users of dangerous
equipment. The standards for dangerous driving appear reasonable;
they invite those making the decision to "consider whether
the act of driving concerns was undertaken deliberately and/or
repeatedly" and contain examples such as "racing or
competitive driving"; "speed which is highly inappropriate
for the prevailing road or traffic conditions"; and "aggressive
or intimidatory driving". However, they must be taken together
with the charging standard for careless driving, which includes
such behaviour as "overtaking on the inside"; "driving
through red traffic light"; "turning into a minor road
and colliding with a pedestrian"; and "reading a newspaper/map".
The standard notes that "the above examples explain the driver's
conduct rather than demonstrate a course of driving which necessarily
falls below the objective standard of the driving itself",
but although it invites the prosecutor to consider whether a charge
of dangerous driving would be appropriate, it is clear that "usually
[sic] when this conduct occurs the appropriate charge will
be" careless driving.[56]
62. The charging standard claims that assessment
of driving behaviour must be "objective"; it is hard
to see what could be more objective evidence of a dangerous course
of behaviour than actual injury to another road user, particularly
when rule 146 of the Highway Code stipulates: "watch out
for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If
they have started to cross they have priority, so give way".
The promised revision of charging standards must start from
a wholesale reconsideration of the standards, not minor amendments.
Some of the existing standards appear unduly lenient. For example,
we believe it is unreasonable that conduct such as turning into
a minor road and colliding with a pedestrian should usually be
considered as the lesser offence of careless driving.
63. The revision of charging standards must also
ensure that more cases are brought in the Crown Court rather than
in magistrates' courts. This is not just to emphasise the seriousness
of the offences. In cases of causing death by dangerous driving,
dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving while under
the influence of drink or drugs, it is possible for a jury to
find the accused not guilty of the offence charged but guilty
of some other offence. A charge of careless driving means that
the perpetrator is tried before a magistrate's court, and there
is no opportunity for a more serious charge to be brought if the
evidence suggests that it would be appropriate. More cases should
be brought for juries, rather than magistrates, to decide.
64. The Metropolitan Police suggested that the standard
for competent driving should be that identified in the Highway
Code and that "when any assessment of bad driving is to be
made the question [should be] 'would the manoeuvre or series of
manoeuvres have caused the driver to fail the driving test?' If
the answer is yes then the case for bad driving is complete."[57]
This seems a far better benchmark than those in the charging standards.
65. Ken McDonald QC, Director of Public Prosecutions,
told us that
We are taking a number of measures to improve the
way in which we deal with road traffic fatality cases. .. the
Charging Standard is being revised. In addition we are in the
process of setting up a network of specialist prosecutors linked
to the CPS areas. They are required to keep an overview of the
relevant cases in the particular Area, offer practical advice
and assistance to colleagues, and, where appropriate, provide
a second opinion. We are also constantly striving to improve the
way in which we deal with victims and witnesses. For instance
if a fatality is involved, the CPS will offer the family a meeting
in which to explain our decision if we decide not to commence
a prosecution.
66. We welcome the fact that Crown Prosecution
Service is trying to improve the way in which it deals with road
traffic cases. It should be extended: injured victims must also
be informed how their cases will be handled. Of course, these
explanations would be more acceptable if the charging standards
were revised as we have recommended.
35 
