Longer jail terms for those causing serious injury behind the wheel

is this good news for bikers?

For many years Judges have criticised the inadequate sentencing powers afforded to them when dealing with the offence of Dangerous Driving.

Indeed, there is a stark contrast between the penalties available for this offence, which carries a maximum of two years imprisonment, and the more
serious offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, which carries
a maximum custodial sentence of 14 years.

However, from 3 December 2012, the new offence of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving will attempt to close this gap.

The offence:

From 3 December 2012, any person who causes serious injury to another
person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on
a road or other public place will be guilty of an offence.

The offence can be tried in either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court, and,
upon conviction, carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment,
together with an unlimited fine and mandatory disqualification from
driving (the length of which is not confirmed within the legislation).

Driving dangerously:

For the new offence to apply, Prosecutors must establish that the
motorist was driving dangerously, that is to say, his standard of driving
fell far below that which would be expected of a careful and competent
driver. Typically, this will include cases of excessive speed, aggressive
driving, deliberate disregard of traffic lights or other road signs and use of a
mobile telephone.

Serious injury:

The definition of serious injury is stated within the legislation as “physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861”.

Whilst case law has previously considered the types of injury which may amount to grievous bodily harm, it will of course take some time for cases to proceed through the courts before we are in a position to appreciate exactly what is considered to amount to ‘serious injury’ for the purposes of this new road traffic offence.

Clearly, it is likely to encompass those cases where individuals sustain injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement i.e. the type of serious ‘life changing’ injuries initially debated in the run up to the introduction of this legislation.

But what about cases where individuals sustain broken or displaced limbs or bones or those which result in a substantial loss of blood? Such injuries have previously been considered to amount to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. But surely, in the context of a road traffic collision, particularly one involving a motorcyclist or pedestrian, injuries such as a broken arm or leg are highly likely to feature?

Is it really Parliament’s intention that such injuries could fall within the scope of the legislation? There is a very real risk that drivers may face prosecution for this new offence where a third party sustains serious, but in no way life-changing or longlasting injuries such as a broken bone
or cut to the head. In the absence of any Sentencing Guidelines, the prospect of lengthy jail terms should lead drivers understandably alarmed.

The future:

It will be interesting to see how the new offence is dealt with in practice. For example, will the Police arrest individuals for this more serious offence automatically in the immediate aftermath of an accident even where the extent of injuries remains unknown? How will cases be addressed where injuries start off as serious but are relatively short lived in medical terms? What about cases involving complicated medical situations where the injured party already had significant underlying medical issues but these were exacerbated as a result of a road traffic accident?For many though, the key question remains, how long is it before the legislation is extended still further and drivers are facing custodial sentences for causing serious injuries
as a result of a momentary period of careless driving?


Personally, I welcome the above new laws

what does everyone else think?

The thing that annoys me about this is you're penalising someone based on the consequence, rather than the misdeed. If I fall asleep at the wheel and crash into a truck and write my car off, but don't injure anyone, I'm no better than the person who falls asleep at the wheel and crashes into a motorcyclist, injuring them. The thing the person does wrong (falling asleep at the wheel, resulting in "an accident") is what they should be tried for.

To use a real world example:
I watched a police camera action program and saw a limo mess up (excess speed, not enough talent, stupid vehicle) and plow into the oncoming traffic. As he only hit a large people carrier, they were mercifully uninjured. At the time, I regularly rode that section of road and he could have very easily taken me out there instead. I don't doubt the penalty if he had killed me would have been severe, but I was appalled that simply because no one was hurt, he got let off with a smaller fine than I had for speeding (that couldn't have possibly hurt anyone other than myself) along the same section of road 6 months earlier.

[Fallout]

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

The thing that annoys me about this is you're penalising someone based on the consequence, rather than the misdeed. If I fall asleep at the wheel and crash into a truck and write my car off, but don't injure anyone, I'm no better than the person who falls asleep at the wheel and crashes into a motorcyclist, injuring them. The thing the person does wrong (falling asleep at the wheel, resulting in "an accident") is what they should be tried for.

On the face of it that makes sense, but if you employ that logic, anyone who punches someone in the face should get the same sentence. Whether the victim just has a shiner to show for it or hits their head on a curb and dies, the aggressor should be treated in the same way. Doesn't stack up in that example.

maybe i mis-read /misunderstood the meaning but the injury is over and above the dangerous driving charge?

so basically now the limo driver will not get off lightly (as he did) due to the fact no-one was injured?

my understanding is that the scenario described above is now a thing of the past and regardless of injury (from none to loss of life) will result in a conviction dangerous driving, speeding etc as listed in OP?

Originally Posted by SuzukiNess

But surely, in the context of a road traffic collision, particularly one involving a motorcyclist or pedestrian, injuries such as a broken arm or leg are highly likely to feature?

Is it really Parliament’s intention that such injuries could fall within the scope of the legislation? There is a very real risk that drivers may face prosecution for this new offence where a third party sustains serious, but in no way life-changing or longlasting injuries such as a broken bone
or cut to the head. In the absence of any Sentencing Guidelines, the prospect of lengthy jail terms should lead drivers understandably alarmed.

I'd have thought that the whole point is to leave drivers alarmed. The whole point of legislation like the road traffic act is as a deterrent as much as a punishment. It does not cover the momentary lapse of concentration but "Aggressive driving/ excess speed" etc.

Consider the difference between Murder and Manslaughter. Manslaughter, in general, does not carry the same sentance as there was no intention to kill with manslaughter, just that you were doing something should not have, which resulted in death, the effect is punished though. So this legislation should be considered in relation to Wounding and GBH, which carries a stiffer sentance, (GBH with Intent max 16 yrs I think). The effect is the same as serious injury by dangerous driving, but the intent was not there (in SIDD) so the sentance is not as stiff. I'd say it is about right using the same definition as GBH.

Well, the intention is an important element. As long as there is a provision for intent in any law, the tariff is likely to be higher. But I think the consequences should have a bearing on sentences. This and the lack of consideration that you might compare to in a negligence case.

If you fall asleep at the wheel and cause no harm by crashing into a tree then I agree the sentence shouldn't be harsh. But if the consideration is that you failed to pull over and rest when knowingly tired, and as a result fall asleep, hitting another vehicle and killing someone then the sentence should be harsher.

There is clearly no difference in intent but there is a lack of consideration in both scenarios and a greater consequence in the second. I'm in favour.

I strongly believe that unless you cause a death or life changing injury by dangerous driving then a prison term should not be a punishment.

It's my opinion that a custodial sentence where no-one has even had an accident is a misuse of the justice system.

[tigersaw]

I'm surprised the courts or even police cant hand out mini bans for traffic offences.
Imagine being seen on your mobile phone - 2 weeks ban starting at midnight, that would hurt more than the £60 fine.

Great, let's bring in even more restrictive legislation, as if there isn't enough.

[Ch00]

I dont see the need for the new law. Judges very rarely use the full weight of punishement when sentancing already. If they were constantly doing this then the new law would be needed.