Title: Road traffic offences

Offence: Dangerous driving

Legislation: Road Traffic Act 1988 s.2

Commencement Date:

Mode of Trial: Triable either way

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty:

• On indictment - 2 years imprisonment or a fine or both
• Summary conviction - imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine, or both
• Disqualification minimum 12 months
• Obligatory endorsement
• Mandatory disqualification until passes extended driving test

Sentencing Range: Non custodial options may be considered, but usually a custodial penalty is appropriate, especially where a number of aggravating factors combine

None

A list of aggravating and mitigating factors was set out by the Court of Appeal in R v Cooksley and others [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 1, which set the guideline for cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Although some of the factors outlined are of application only to offences in which death results, many of them are relevant to offences of dangerous driving.

• the consumption of drugs (including legal medication known to cause drowsiness) or of alcohol, ranging from a couple of drinks to a 'motorised pub crawl'
• greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; 'showing off'
• disregard of warnings from fellow passengers
• a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
• aggressive driving (such as driving much too close to the vehicle in front, persistent inappropriate attempts to overtake, or cutting in after overtaking)
• driving while the driver's attention is avoidably distracted, for example by reading or by use of a mobile phone (especially if hand-held)
• driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition that significantly impairs the offender's driving skills
• driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest
• driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where this has been motivated by commercial concerns

• other offences committed at the same time, such as driving without ever having held a licence; driving while disqualified; driving without insurance; driving while a learner without supervision; taking a vehicle without consent; driving a stolen vehicle
• previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences that involve bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving

• death (s.1 offences only)
• serious injury to one or more victims, (in addition to the death(s) if also a case under s.1 RTA)

• behaviour at the time of the offence, such as failing to stop, falsely claiming that one of the victims was responsible for the crash, or trying to throw the victim off the bonnet of the car by swerving in order to escape
• causing death/injury in the course of dangerous driving in an attempt to avoid detection or apprehension
• offence committed while the offender was on bail.

• a good driving record;
• the absence of previous convictions;
• a timely plea of guilty;
• genuine shock or remorse - in cases where death results (which may be greater if the victim is either a close relation or a friend);
• the offender's age (but only in cases where lack of driving experience has contributed to the commission of the offence), and
• the fact that the offender has also been seriously injured as a result of the accident caused by the dangerous driving.

He needs legal representation and given the seriousness of the offence he will probably get legal aid.

He is almost certainly looking at a custodial sentence given the aggravationg factors of the injury to a pedestrian, the cuircumstances of the offence and his previous driving record.

Sorry but i must disagree you must ask yourself if this was your wife and kid how would you feel.

Biased. Obviously. Thats why its not the family of the victims job to prosecute. Y'know, Democracy of Great Britain and all that. Fair and impartial trials? Cornerstone of democratic society? Ring a bell? No? Dont follow? Okay.

First off he cannot refuse legal help, the legal aid system was put there for a reason, courts can be merciless if you dont have someone there who knows the ins and outs. Ive met many solicitors in my work and a good one can use language in such a way to make everything seem completely different and he is entitled to receive such help. And dangerous driving almost killing baby in pushchair is possibly the worst headline imaginable, he wont get out of that by himself. In my view anybody sentanced to prison without a legal representative to argue their case should be an illegal conviction, but thats another discussion for another day.

His previous driving record doesnt help his cause but a good solicitor will go heavily on the side of good character and genuine remorse. I think the predictions of the others in here are probably about right, some ideas are a bit extreme, i'd never throw someone in prison for 20 years for stupid driving which didnt kill anybody, havent got room for a start LOL!!

Well i believe in a proportionate sentance to the crime. And 20 years in prison for dangerous driving with no deaths involved puts the sentance on a par with pre-meditated murder. Keep going down that route and one day we'll be putting people in prison for 5 years for stealing a twix.

We have harsher penalties on driving law than alot of the western world. In some states in the US, California specifically, you can never lose your licence purely for speeding. The record speeding ticket issued there was for 210mph i think (three guesses at what car it was) and the most the judge could do is impose the maximum fine, 500 dollars i think it was. And he was free to go and do it again. Here, 9 times out of 10 you lose your licence for going over 100mph.

And as far as deterrents go, having to pass my test again is enough to stop me speeding anywhere LOL! I fear that more than any prison sentance you could throw at me. There will always be some people who just never learn. You will Never change that.