The Courts and Sentencing

Transcription

1 The Courts and Sentencing

2 Foreword For a multitude of good policy reasons Government, both national and local, is eager to encourage more of us to cycle. This relieves congestion and pollution and, in a cash-strapped public sector, relieves pressure on the public finances though lower healthcare costs. A substantial proportion of those who do not currently cycle indicate that what prevents them, more than anything else, is the fear of harm from a collision with motorised traffic. Laws are in place that can deal with the problem of the endangerment and the intimidation of vulnerable road users caused by poor driving, whether deliberate, inadvertent or merely inconsiderate. These laws though are not deterring bad driving and are not keeping bad drivers off the roads to the extent that they should. As this report demonstrates, the focus is not always on the vulnerability of the victim, where the sentencing guidelines say it should be. Sometimes, on the contrary, courts strive to exculpate an offender by focusing not upon the victim s vulnerability but upon whether he or she was wearing protective equipment suited to the undertaking of a hazardous activity, falsely equating vulnerability with hazard. This timely report demonstrates why and how the criminal justice system needs reform. No other cycling organisation has campaigned so tirelessly on this subject than CTC, the national cycling charity which has represented the interests of cyclists of all types and descriptions since the dawn of the cycling age. Martin Porter QC, Temple, London 2 The Court and Sentencing

3 Introduction Cycling is essentially a safe activity, posing little risk to cyclists or other road users, plus the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved. However, when collisions with motor vehicles do occur, cyclists and other vulnerable road users (VRUs) are disproportionately the victims. IN THE UK, ACTUAL CYCLE SAFETY LAGS BEHIND MANY OF OUR CONTINENTAL NEIGHBOURS In the UK, actual cycle safety lags behind many of our continental neighbours due to poor infrastructure, high traffic volumes and speeds, irresponsible driving, and a legal system that fails to respond appropriately to road danger. THE WAY THE JUSTICE SYSTEM HANDLES BAD DRIVING SHOULD REINFORCE THE MESSAGE THAT IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ENDANGER AND INTIMIDATE OTHER ROAD USERS Unfortunately, the justice system s often unsatisfactory response to road collisions involving VRUs undermines efforts to promote active travel despite its health, economic, environmental and other benefits, and instead deters people from taking part in cycling or walking or allowing their children to do so. Instead of putting people off cycling, the way the justice system handles bad driving should in fact reinforce the message that it is unacceptable to endanger and intimidate other road users, especially the most vulnerable. The criminal justice system needs to be reformed in a number of ways to ensure that the law and its enforcement protect all road users more effectively. CTC is campaigning for 1 Improvements to roads policing, with a focus on thorough police investigations of all road traffic collisions involving injury and death. 2 Better charging and prosecution decisions. 3 Sentences that reflect the severity of an offence and discourage bad driving. The Court and Sentencing 3

4 CTC launched the Road Justice campaign in collaboration with the Cyclists Defence Fund (CDF) to highlight failings in the legal system s approach to bad driving. Since 2009, through its online reporting system, CTC has collected over 4000 reports of bad driving that has endangered VRUs (at and has spoken directly to victims who were injured by bad driving but whose cases where not dealt with suitably by the legal system. This report is the third of four that explore where and how the justice system needs reforming. The report focuses on sentencing policy and practice relating to the following driving offences: causing death and serious injury by driving; dangerous driving; careless driving; and driving when disqualified. The reason for this focus is that there are significant problems with the definitions and sentencing policies relating to these offences. For further information and statistics relating to other driving offences, please refer to briefings produced by the national road crash victims charity, RoadPeace, which can be found at roadpeace.org/resources The problems with the current framework for sentencing for driving offences are outlined and exemplified by eight case studies. CTC s proposals for improving sentencing are presented. This report focuses on England and Wales; however, its principles are equally applicable in the rest of the UK. The report focuses on cycling because CTC s and CDF s members and supporters are cyclists. However, the concerns raised here also affect other VRUs, especially pedestrians. If the actions recommended are implemented, driver behaviour would improve, which in turn would improve road safety for all road users. CTC is also concerned with the efficacy of inquests into road deaths at answering questions about how the death occurred and preventing further deaths, but this issue is not covered in this report. For information on inquests into road deaths and coroner reform, please visit roadpeace.org/resources 4 The Court and Sentencing

5 Background Lenient sentences create misleading messages When a driver who has caused injury or death to a vulnerable road user reaches court, victims and their families hope that justice will be done. Victims are, however, regularly disheartened by their experience of the criminal justice system, especially when exposed to victim-blaming and when drivers are given demeaning sentences that do little to change driver behaviour. Lenient sentences for crimes that maim and kill not only cause great distress to victims and their families, but also suggest that the justice system views the dangers on our roads as inevitable, and that protecting the safety of vulnerable road users is a low priority. EVEN IN SERIOUS CASES ACTUAL SENTENCES RARELY COME CLOSE TO THE MAXIMUM LEVELS PERMITTED The threshold for maximum sentences is too high The current sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales state that the fact that the victim of a causing death by driving offence was a particularly vulnerable road user is a factor that should be taken into account when determining the seriousness of an offence. However, this is seldom reflected in sentencing: even in serious cases actual sentences rarely come close to the maximum levels permitted (see table 1, page 6, for the maximum penalties). Martin Boulton pleaded guilty to causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. Boulton had been adjusting his car radio before he hit the cyclist. He was sentenced to a suspended six-month jail term, 200 hours of unpaid work, two consecutive 15-month driving bans and was fined 350 and ordered to pay a 15 victim surcharge. 17-year-old Lee Cahill already had a conviction for speeding when he pleaded guilty to causing the death of Rob Jeffries by careless driving. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order, ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work, to re-take his driving test and to pay court costs of 85, and was given an 18-month driving ban. Scott Sellars fell asleep at the wheel of his car and killed a motorcyclist. He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and was given a six-month suspended sentence, ordered to do 300 hours of unpaid work, and given a two-year driving ban. Brian Creasey ran a red light before he hit and killed cyclist Ian Hammel. He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and was jailed for 20 weeks, banned from driving for three years and ordered to take an extended re-test. LENIENT SENTENCES FOR CRIMES THAT MAIM AND KILL NOT ONLY CAUSE GREAT DISTRESS TO VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES, BUT ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM VIEWS THE DANGERS ON OUR ROADS AS INEVITABLE Paul Brown was driving at between 55 and 60mph and eating a sandwich when he hit and killed cyclist Joe Wilkinson. He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and was acquitted by a jury of causing death by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work and a one-year driving ban. The Court and Sentencing 5

6 TABLE 1: SENTENCES FOR DRIVING OFFENCES Driving Offence Crown Court Magistrates Court Driving Ban Penalty Points Court Causing death by dangerous driving 14 years N/A Obligatory. Min 2 years. Compulsory re-test Crown Court Causing serious injury by dangerous driving 5 years 5,000 fine and/ or 6 months Obligatory. Min 2 years. Compulsory re-test Magistrates or Crown Court Dangerous driving 2 years 5,000 fine and/ or 6 months Obligatory. Min 1 year. Compulsory re-test Magistrates or Crown Court Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs 14 years N/A Obligatory. Min 2 years. Compulsory re-test Crown Court Causing death by careless driving 5 years 5,000 fine and/ or 6 months Obligatory. Min 1 year Magistrates or Crown Court Causing death by driving whilst unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured 2 years 5,000 fine and/ or 6 months Obligatory. Min 1 year Magistrates or Crown Court Careless driving, inconsiderate driving, driving without due care and attention N/A 5,000 fine and/ or 6 months Discretionary 3-9 Magistrates Court Driving when disqualified N/A 5,000 fine and/ or 6 months Discretionary 6 Magistrates Court One recent case presents an exception which proves the rule: the driver who killed a young couple whilst they rode a tandem bicycle in Bristol received the maximum penalty for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving: a 14 year custodial sentence, reduced to ten and a half years because he pleaded guilty. Although the driver in this case was given the maximum sentence, the case highlights just how high the threshold is for maximum sentences to be imposed: the driver was charged with two counts of causing death by dangerous driving; he had four previous convictions for dangerous driving and 11 for driving whilst disqualified; he was driving whilst disqualified and with no insurance at the time of the incident; and he failed to stop at the scene. 6 The Court and Sentencing

7 Following this case, a petition was set up calling for the Government to review sentencing guidelines for drivers with previous driving convictions who go on to commit serious offences. The petition gathered over 6,000 signatures and culminated in a cross-party parliamentary debate on dangerous driving in January This case shows there is considerable public and political interest in substantially increasing sentences for the worst driving offences, in particular for drivers who persistently flout the law. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC AND POLITICAL INTEREST IN SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING SENTENCES FOR THE WORST DRIVING OFFENCES Inconsistencies in Statutory Framework Derisory sentences are in many cases due to inconsistencies in the statutory framework of offences and maximum sentences, flawed police investigations (see the Road Justice report on policing), and/or weak charging and prosecution decisions (see the Road Justice report on charging and prosecution). Police, prosecutors and the courts have a propensity to treat bad driving as merely careless, rather than dangerous. CTC believes that this is wrong in the vast majority of cases. Where this occurs, it seriously limits the courts sentencing options. POLICE, PROSECUTORS AND THE COURTS HAVE A PROPENSITY TO TREAT BAD DRIVING AS MERELY CARELESS, RATHER THAN DANGEROUS The Road Justice report on charging and prosecution considers ways in which the statutory framework of bad driving offences could be amended to improve prosecution and sentencing outcomes. The charging and prosecution report, which should be read in conjunction with this report, focuses on improvements that could be made without requiring changes to the primary legislation. The statutory framework (see table 1) creates problems for sentencing partly because of a lack of clarity on the distinction between dangerous and careless driving (see the Road Justice report on charging and prosecution for more detail on this), and partly because the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving are vastly greater than those for causing serious injury by equally bad driving or for causing death by careless driving. For driving that is deemed to be dangerous, the maximum penalty for causing death is 14 years in prison, but just five years for causing serious injury (until the recent introduction of the new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, the maximum custodial sentence for dangerous driving that did not cause death was just two years). Likewise, the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving is five years in prison. The Court and Sentencing 7

8 CASUALTIES AND DISQUALIFICATIONS Road casulaties down 21% All casualties Disqualifications Disqualifications down 47% Figure 1 - Source: Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Criminal Statistics, Motoring Tables (Vol 6) The discrepancies in maximum sentences make the courts reluctant to impose anything even close to the maximum sentence in fatal cases. Sentencing power is also greatly limited in nonfatal cases, particularly where the prosecution and courts have deemed the driving to be careless not dangerous. The willingness of jurors to convict is vital for the justice system to work as intended. However, over-emphasis on custodial sentences and large discrepancies between maximum custodial sentences can make jurors reluctant to convict if they feel conviction will result in an inappropriately harsh prison sentence. SENTENCING POWER IS GREATLY LIMITED WHERE THE PROSECUTION AND COURTS HAVE DEEMED THE DRIVING TO BE CARELESS NOT DANGEROUS Lack of prioritisation of driving bans There has been a significant decline in the number of disqualifications being imposed for all driving offences between 2007 and This does not correspond to the reduction in road casualties over the same period, demonstrating a lack of prioritisation of driving bans in sentencing practice. Figure 1 shows the drop in road casualty numbers and the drop in disqualifications imposed by all courts from 2007 to The Court and Sentencing

9 LENGTH OF DRIVING BAN BY COURT FOR VERY SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENCES Causing death/dangerous driving Crown Court Causing death/dangerous driving Magistrates Court Figure 2 - Source: Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Criminal Statistics, Motoring Tables (Vol 6) Magistrates often accept drivers pleas of exceptional hardship to avoid bans. Figures from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) show that roughly half of drivers who tot up enough points to be banned avoid disqualification by using the exceptional hardship argument. This undermines the penalty system and means that drivers who endanger others are not taken off the roads. It also perpetuates the idea that driving is a right, not a privilege. THE EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP ARGUMENT UNDERMINES THE PENALTY SYSTEM AND MEANS THAT DRIVERS WHO ENDANGER OTHERS ARE NOT TAKEN OFF THE ROAD Allowing a driver involved in a fatal or serious injury collision to continue driving until a case comes to court can be distressing for victims and bereaved relatives and can present an ongoing danger to the public. Under revised CPS charging guidance interim driving bans are said to often be appropriate in cases of fatal or serious injury collisions if the driver has previous convictions for relevant driving offences or was on bail for a driving offence and a subsequent offence was committed. However, the CPS has stated it would be inappropriate to call for an interim driving ban in all fatal collisions. The Court and Sentencing 9

10 LENGTH OF DRIVING BAN BY COURT FOR LESSER DRIVING OFFENCES Careless driving/licence offences Crown Court Careless driving/licence offences Magistrates Court Figure 3 - Source: Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Criminal Statistics, Motoring Tables (Vol 6) Sentencing guidelines say very little about the role of driving bans as a sentencing option. When judges do impose disqualifications they are reluctant to impose lengthy bans. As can be seen in Figure 2, the lengths of driving bans given in 2012 for offences that entail a mandatory driving ban rarely exceeded three years (this includes all causing death by driving offences; causing bodily harm by furious driving; and causing danger by causing anything to be on a road or interfering with a vehicle or traffic equipment). N.B. Driving bans imposed until the driving test is passed are excluded from this graph because the Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the exact length of these bans. Figure 3 shows the length of driving bans for careless driving and driving licence offences (including driving whilst disqualified), for which bans are discretionary. Bans given for these offences are also short: 65% are less than a year. Figure 1 and figure 2 show that very few lifetime bans were given in Out of 74,409 disqualifications imposed in 2012 for all driving offences, only 130 were for life and only 5 of these were for causing death or bodily harm. Figure 4 shows the distribution of lifetime bans imposed in The Court and Sentencing

11 DISTRIBUTION OF LIFETIME DISQUALIFICATIONS IMPOSED BY ALL COURTS 2012 Causing death or bodily harm Dangerous driving Drink driving Careless Driving Taking or theft of vehicle Driving licence related to offences Vehicle insurance offences Dangerous condition of vehicle Figure 4 - The numbers in the pie chart relate to the number of lifetime bans imposed for each offence during Source: Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Criminal Statistics, Motoring Tables (Vol 6) 28% Of drivers convicted of causing death by careless driving in the magistrates courts in 2012 were ordered to re-sit the driving test. An order to re-sit the driving test is not obligatory for this offence 5 The number of lifetime bans imposed by all courts for causing death or bodily harm by driving in 2012, out of 376 disqualifications 68% Of drivers found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving in 2012 were given a custodial sentence of less than five years. The maximum sentence is 14 years 152 The average fine imposed for careless driving in The maximum fine is The number of lifetime bans imposed by all courts in 2012 for dangerous driving, out of 3228 disqualifications 782 The average fine imposed in the crown courts for dangerous driving in The maximum fine is 5000 The Court and Sentencing 11

12 CTC s proposals for reform 1. Sentences for bad driving offences should be reviewed by the Sentencing Council as soon as possible The Sentencing Council has committed to reviewing sentencing guidelines for driving offences but has twice postponed the review and has not given a start date. We recommend this should be based on research into the public acceptability of recommendations 3 and 4 below. 2. Failing to have proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users should be emphasised as an aggravating factor in the revised sentencing guidelines 3. The revised guidelines should recommend greater use of non-custodial sentencing options, particularly driving bans, where danger was caused but with no evidence of intent or wilful risk-taking on the part of the driver Providing it is correctly defined, careless driving should not merit a custodial sentence, even when a death has been caused. Non-custodial sentences should be used instead. danger but where there is no evidence that they are a dangerous person, who needs to be imprisoned for public protection. Long driving bans are a seriously under-used sentencing option, with bans of more than three years being extremely rare. Long prison sentences should be reserved for drivers who have caused danger through intent or wilful risk-taking, or who have flouted past driving bans. Both approaches can be justified on public protection grounds. Driving bans should be imposed for a minimum period before the driver is able to re-sit the driving test. Judges should not accept hardship pleas to avoid driving bans except in extremely exceptional circumstances such as when the driver or a dependent is disabled. Interim driving bans should be imposed in all cases where the charge carries a mandatory ban. Re-testing: Judges have the discretion to order re-tests for any offence that carries penalty points. An extended re-test can be imposed where disqualification is obligatory and an ordinary test can be imposed where disqualification is not obligatory. Judges should make greater use of this discretion, especially when a driver has caused serious injury or death or in the case of professional drivers who have had their licences revoked. Non-custodial options include: Driving bans: Driving is a privilege not a right and this privilege should be taken away if a driver proves they are not safe behind the wheel. On the other hand, long driving bans may be a more appropriate sanction than long custodial sentences where a driver has caused serious Driver education: Judges should make greater use of driver alertness courses, which should be reserved for sentencing rather than used by the police as an alternative to prosecution. Other non-custodial options include: suspended sentences; community orders; anti-social behaviour orders; restorative justice; vehicle confiscation; and compensation orders. 12 The Court and Sentencing

13 4. The revised guidelines should increase the recommended sentences for the worst offenders Much longer prison sentences, accompanied by long or lifetime driving bans, should be imposed on drivers who present an ongoing danger to the public, such as those who drive with intent to endanger, who breach driving bans, or who are repeat offenders. 5. Judges should receive specialist training in road traffic law and cycle safety issues, especially if handling fatal cases, in order to avoid victim-blaming Judges have been known to make comments tantamount to victim-blaming when directing juries in criminal cases or making judgements over civil compensation. Such comments, although rare, can play a part in downgrading, sentencing, acquittal and lower insurance payouts. References to whether a cyclist was wearing a helmet or high visibility clothing are the most common comments made in cases where a cyclist has been injured or killed. In criminal cases, it is legally irrelevant whether or not an injured cyclist was wearing a helmet or high visibility clothing and these factors should have no bearing on either the verdict or the sentence. Summary of proposals 1 Sentences for bad driving offences should be reviewed by the Sentencing Council as soon as possible 2 Failing to have proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users should be emphasised as an aggravating factor in the revised sentencing guidelines 3 The revised guidelines should recommend greater use of non-custodial sentencing options, particularly driving bans, where danger was caused but with no evidence of intent or wilful risk-taking on the part of the driver 4 The revised guidelines should increase the recommended sentences for the worst offenders 5 Judges should receive specialist training in road traffic law and cycle safety issues, especially if handling fatal cases, in order to avoid victim-blaming The Court and Sentencing 13

14 Cyclists stories Tony s story Twyford, Berkshire, September 2012 Tony was killed whilst out on a Sunday morning ride on an open road with exceptionally good visibility. The driver who killed him when she drove into the back of him hadn t seen him because she had been fiddling with her satnav. She effectively drove blind for almost 20 seconds whilst looking at her satnav, covering a distance of 500 metres. The driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, she pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving but the CPS pursued a prosecution for the more serious charge. The driver was given an 18 month custodial sentence and a two and a half year driving ban, of a possible 14 year custodial sentence and unlimited driving ban. The driver s three previous convictions for speeding were discounted as speed was not a factor in Tony s death. 14 The Court and Sentencing

15 Jerry s story Woodbridge, Suffolk, September 2009 Jerry was hit by a car driver who had approached from the opposite direction and turned right across his path broadsiding him. The driver claimed he had been dazzled by sunlight. Jerry hit the car s bonnet and windscreen and landed head first 5 metres away. Jerry suffered severe concussion, a broken nose, crushed nasal cartilage, a broken front tooth requiring root canal surgery, whiplash, and multiple facial cuts and bruising to his body. He couldn t work for 5 months. The driver was convicted of careless driving and received 6 penalty points and a 250 fine. He did not lose his licence, despite a police recommendation that he should do so. Terence s story Swanwick, Derbyshire, October 2010 Terence was knocked from his bicycle on a roundabout by a car driver, then run over by a van pulling a trailer, both of which had entered the roundabout from a fast A-road. Terence spent six days in a critical care unit and three more days in hospital. He had 12 rib fractures, a brain injury, flail chest, blood and air in his chest cavity, pneumonia, two spinal fractures, ruptured spleen, paralysed bowl, friction burns, massive bruising and a mutilated ear. Two and a half years on he still suffers with lower back and neck pain. He was warned that his injuries could hasten degenerative changes by three years. Only the driver of the first vehicle was prosecuted. He was charged with careless driving and pleaded guilty at Ilkeston magistrate s court. He received a 200 fine, 35 court costs, 15 victim surcharge and four penalty points. The Court and Sentencing 15

16 Sarah-Charlotte s story Oswestry, Shropshire, August 2012 Registered exercise professional and qualified yoga instructor Sarah-Charlotte was hit on a roundabout by a car driver when she was cycling home on a summer afternoon. After hitting her, the driver drove over Sarah s legs with the front and rear wheels of the car and carried on driving some way down the road. She suffered severe soft tissue damage to both her legs and spent two weeks in hospital. She now has to undergo multiple physiotherapy sessions in hospital each week and has a strict physiotherapy regime to follow at home. She has serious difficulty walking and has lost her independence because she can no longer leave the house without assistance due to her injuries and posttraumatic stress disorder. She fears she will not be able to work in her chosen career again. The driver was convicted of careless driving and received 9 penalty points; she was fined 110 and ordered to pay 60 court costs and a 15 victim surcharge. The magistrate implied at the hearing that the driver would have received a lesser sentence had Sarah-Charlotte not been present in court for all to see the extent of her injuries. 16 The Court and Sentencing

17 Elaine s story Croydon, Surrey, May 2009 Elaine was hit by a car driver who overtook her but underestimated the speed she was travelling at and hit her as the car pulled back in. Elaine was thrown head first over her handlebars. At the scene of the collision the driver claimed she hadn t seen Elaine, which seems implausible as she had manoeuvred to overtake her. Elaine suffered a broken jaw, lost four front teeth, and had a minor spinal injury. She was off work for 10 weeks, had six screws and two titanium plates put in her jaw, underwent physiotherapy to regain her voice and visited an osteopath for two months to recover from her back injuries. Elaine s jaw will never fully realign, this means that whenever she relaxes her tongue muscles her jaw slips out of place. Elaine cannot eat things that need biting because her teeth do not align. The driver was found guilty of careless driving and was given 5 penalty points and fined 66. Lesley s story Bath, Avon and Somerset, March 2013 Lesley was knocked off her bike by a taxi driver who clipped her rear wheel as he turned left behind her. Lesley suffered 3 broken bones in her pelvis. She was wheelchair bound for 13 weeks and had to have physiotherapy for 2 months. Lesley was asked by the police whether she wanted the driver to be prosecuted or to attend a driver alertness course. She felt it was inappropriate that she was even being asked the question, given the seriousness of her case. The driver was charged with careless driving and was fined 170, ordered to pay a 20 victim surcharge and received 9 penalty points. The Court and Sentencing 17

18 Nigel s story Banstead, Surrey, March 2012 Nigel was cycling along a quiet residential road when a driver coming from the opposite direction turned right into Nigel s side of the road and hit him side on. Nigel suffered multiple injuries and was attended to at the scene by Surrey Air Ambulance before being taken to hospital where he remained for 2 months, spending the first 12 days on life support. Nigel s injuries included two broken legs (one badly), broken pelvis, shattered elbow and multiple fractures to the head which has resulted with him being left with double vision due to damage in one eye and is now deaf in one ear. His work and family life have severely suffered as a result, he is unable to return to his previous business due to his injuries and he will never be able to run properly again, if at all. Due to the injuries Nigel received, he had to surrender his driving licence and it took seventeen months to get it back. The 19 year old driver was charged with, and, with the help of a QC, pleaded guilty to careless driving. He was given four penalty points and ordered to pay a 300 fine. The Magistrate s justification for this sentence was that contributory factors needed to be considered: namely that Nigel had not been wearing a helmet and, according to witnesses, was going quite fast. CTC shares Nigel s view that, legally, these factors should have been irrelevant to the sentence. However, as a victim of a summary only offence, Nigel did not have the right to appeal the sentence, although the driver did. 18 The Court and Sentencing

19 David s story Tameside, Greater Manchester, March 2010 David was left seriously injured when he was hit by an un-licenced driver who failed to give way at a crossroads. His injuries included a punctured lung, broken collar bone, broken nose, broken eye socket, bleeding on the brain, and all his ribs broken on his left side. David was off work for eight months. The 19-year-old provisional licence holder had taken the vehicle without the owner s permission and had driven straight across the junction without stopping, clipping David s back wheel and sending him cartwheeling down the road. At the scene, the driver exited the car, saw that David was unconscious and drove away. He abandoned the car and came back on foot to check if David was alive. A witness who had stayed at the scene then identified him to the police. The driver was charged with driving otherwise in accordance with a licence and careless driving. He pleaded guilty and was banned from driving for six months, given six penalty points and ordered to pay 300 compensation. The driver successfully appealed the order to pay compensation on the basis of hardship as it would have to be deducted from his benefits. David had to contact the court himself to find out what sentence the driver had received and to find out why he had not been compensated. The Court and Sentencing 19

20 The Road Justice Campaign The Road Justice campaign seeks to encourage the police, the prosecution services and the courts to put policies and practices in place which demonstrate that bad driving is both taken seriously and actively discouraged, thereby increasing road safety for all road users. CTC - the national cycling charity works to inspire and help people to cycle. CTC campaigns to remove barriers to cycling, and believes that by creating a safer road environment through ensuring bad drivers are brought to justice, more individuals will take up and continue cycling. The Cyclists Defence Fund works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling by fighting significant legal cases involving cycling and cyclists. CDF will support the Road Justice campaign by providing financial assistance to challenge apparent failings of the legal system. Campaign Supporters RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, has been campaigning for justice for road traffic victims since its start in RoadPeace has worked closely with CTC over the years and welcomes its Road Justice campaign. British Cycling, as well as being the national governing body for cycling, also represents cyclists interests at all levels, such as campaigning on issues including cycle safety and keeping cycle racing on the road. Slater and Gordon Lawyers operate CTC s incident line and have extensive experience helping CTC members obtain compensation for injuries. Slater and Gordon provide financial backing to the Road Justice campaign This The report Court has and been Sentencing prepared by CTC, the national cycling charity. Although it broadly represents the perspectives of the organisations supporting the Road Justice campaign, it may not necessarily represent all of their views on all matters of detail.