header-logo header-logo

11 January 2007
Issue: 7255 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Road traffic

R v Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 3186, [2006] EWCA Crim 3186

The relevant starting points identified in R v Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996, [2003] 3 All ER 40 (causing death by dangerous driving) should be reassessed as follows:

(i) no aggravating circumstances—12 months to two years’ imprisonment;
(ii) intermediate culpability—two to four and a half years’ imprisonment;
(iii) higher culpability—four and a half to seven years’ imprisonment; and
(iv) most serious culpability—seven to 14 years’ imprisonment. 

Where the driver has been drinking, if the level of impairment is only just in
excess of the permitted limit, and the driving is otherwise careless rather than dangerous, the consumption of alcohol provides the most significant aggravating element of the offence. If there are no others, it will normally fall within the category of offences of causing death by dangerous driving which lack any additional aggravating features.

As the consumption of alcohol increases, so does the relative culpability, and by the time the consumption is at or about double the legal limit, the case would fall within the intermediate category. At higher levels than this, the result will be dangerous driving of a kind which will take the case into the categories of higher culpability and then most serious culpability. It is a specific mitigating feature that defendants behaved responsibly, and took positive action to assist at the scene but it is not a mitigating feature that they merely waited or remained at the scene.

Issue: 7255 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll