STOP THE DANGER DRIVERS: Telegraph & Argus backs plan to give life sentences to drivers who kill

In a hard-hitting submission to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the newspaper said there was a “public perception that the punishment for offenders amounts to next to nothing when set against the never-ending agony heaped upon the victim’s friends and family.”

In arguing for an increase to life imprisonment, the T&A said the current maximum penalty “does not adequately reflect” the culpability of offending behaviour.

The newspaper, which has been campaigning to improve driving standards, said: “This newspaper has been calling for longer sentences for dangerous drivers as part of a ten-point charter published at the start of our Stop the Danger Drivers campaign more than a year ago.”

In its response to the MoJ, the T&A highlighted recent examples of court cases that could have fallen into categories covered by the consultation.

One such example was that of a taxi driver and his passenger who died in a three-car crash in Shipley Airedale Road. Muhammad Sikder, 27, of Sylhet Close, Manningham, and Ismail Miah, 23, of Springfield Place, Manningham, who had been racing each other, were jailed for seven and a half years each.

Meanwhile, on April 7 last year, a court heard how an uninsured driver had been driving at “highly excessive speed” before he crashed and killed a schoolboy passenger in Barkerend. Syam Khan, then 17, fled the scene as 15-year-old Saliq Malik lay dying. Khan, of Kimberley Street, Laisterdyke, was locked up for four years while the father of the victim spoke of his family’s ‘life sentence.’ “Such emotive examples go to the very heart of the issue,” the T&A argued in its response.

The Government asked several other questions in its consultation document.

CLICK HERE TO GIVE YOUR OWN RESONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION BEFORE TODAY'S DEADLINE

Giving its views on plans for a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, the T&A said such legislation would “plug a significant gap in the law” and added that a three-year maximum sentence for the new offence would “send out a clear message.”

In response to another question, the T&A said it agreed that the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs should reflect the same culpability as causing death by dangerous driving. The paper pointed to the case of 16-year-old Jamie Still, who was killed in Otley on December 31, 2010, when he was hit by a driver nearly two times over the drink drive limit. Max McRae, 21, then of Warren Lane, Arthington, was jailed for four years after he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while being unfit through drink. Outside court, Jamie’s mum Karen said “This sentence doesn’t send any message out.”

When asked if consideration should be given to a longer minimum period of disqualification for killer drivers, the T&A said: “Those who kill while behind the wheel should automatically forfeit their right to drive ever again.”

When asked if there were any other driving offences relating to causing death or serious injury that should be changed, the paper said: “Causing death or serious injury through using a hand-held mobile phone while driving should also be given consideration.”

Here is the Telegraph & Argus' response to the consultation in full:

Question 1 -  Should there be a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving?

Yes. While the charges of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and causing serious injury while driving disqualified have been used effectively in Bradford's courts in recent years, it seems quite evident that there is a gap in the law relating to careless driving that results in serious injury.

Indeed, there is a clear disconnect between the current maximum penalty for careless driving - which is an unlimited fine - and the harm caused to the victim of such driving in some cases.

In April 2013, the Telegraph & Argus reported on the case of a man who pleaded guilty to careless driving after the court heard he had hit and seriously injured a motorcyclist when he 'impatiently' tried to turn into traffic. The victim suffered a crush fracture to his leg which needed surgery to reset, was detained in hospital for three days, needed physiotherapy and had between one and two months off work. The offender was sentenced to a community order, 150 hours’ unpaid work and a fine.

In this case, if the option of causing serious injury by careless driving had been available as a charge, the sentence may have been considerably different.

In respect of this and other similar cases, it is the firm view of the Telegraph & Argus that a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving is vital in plugging a significant gap in the criminal justice system.

2 If yes, having regard to the maximum penalties for the existing offences of causing serious injury and assault, would either 2 or 3 years be an appropriate and proportionate maximum penalty for the new offence? 

Three years. A three-year maximum sentence is needed as a deterrent to would-be offenders and would also give a more proportionate sense of justice to victims and their families, who may have lost their ability to walk, work, participate in sport or play with their children.

In actuality, once time had been deducted for an early guilty plea and other mitigating factors, it is unlikely that a maximum three-year sentence would be issued on a regular basis, so three years acts as a good 'starting point' from which to begin trying to find a proportionate sentence.

3 Do you think that the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving adequately reflects the culpability of the offending behaviour or should it be increased from 14 years’ imprisonment to life?

No. It is clear that the maximum penalty for dangerous driving does not adequately reflect the culpability of offending behaviour and the Telegraph & Argus would therefore welcome an increase to life imprisonment.

Indeed, this newspaper has been calling for longer sentences for dangerous drivers as part of a ten-point charter published at the start of our Stop the Danger Drivers campaign more than a year ago. The campaign was launched in the face of mounting concern among readers about the standard of driving on Bradford's roads, following a series of high-profile crashes and a general feeling that nothing was being done to tackle the worsening 'Fast and Furious' mentality among some of the district's drivers.

Our campaign, which started with a front page comment piece, has received high-profile backing from MPs, West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson, and leading road safety charities. In the months that followed, several bereaved parents added their support to the campaign, being interviewed for emotive, hard-hitting front page stories. Senior Government minister Chris Grayling has also given his backing, stating that Bradford had been “dogged” by bad driving for years.

Within just two days of the launch of our campaign, police acknowledged that dangerous driving was a 'cause for concern' on Bradford's roads and, two months later, launched an official crackdown on dangerous driving in Bradford, called Operation Steerside. The Telegraph & Argus-inspired police campaign had been due to last three months, but proved so successful and so popular among the public that it was extended for another three months, then extended again indefinitely. So far, more than 7,000 motorists have been snared in the crackdown for a variety of offences.

Despite this progress locally, there is a definite perception in Bradford that convicted dangerous drivers are getting off too lightly. Time and time again, serious offenders whose cases include a multitude of aggravating factors are put before Bradford's courts, but the sentences handed down do not seem to adequately reflect the gravity of the offending.

The most recent example came on September 16, 2016, when two drivers involved in a double death crash while racing each other on a major road in Bradford were sentenced. A taxi driver and his passenger died at the scene of the three-car crash. The offenders, Muhammad Sikder, 27, of Sylhet Close, Manningham, Bradford, and Ismail Miah, 23, of Springfield Place, Manningham, were described by the judge as "utterly absorbed and utterly selfish" and showing a "flagrant disregard for the great danger" they caused. They were jailed for seven and a half years each.

Meanwhile, on April 7 last year, a court heard how a novice and uninsured driver had been driving at “highly excessive speed” before he crashed and killed a schoolboy passenger when he lost control of a powerful car in Gilpin Street, Barkerend, Bradford. Syam Khan, then 17, fled the scene as 15-year-old Saliq Malik lay dying in the wreckage. Khan, of Kimberley Street, Laisterdyke, Bradford, was locked up for four years while, in contrast, the father of the victim spoke later of his family’s ‘life sentence.’ Such emotive examples go to the very heart of the issue. Is there a public perception that the punishment for offenders amounts to next to nothing when set against the never-ending agony heaped upon the victim’s friends and family? Time and time again, this has proved to be the case in Bradford and something must be done urgently to rectify this imbalance.

We would therefore argue that this consultation exercise is an historic opportunity to right a long-standing wrong when it comes to the punishment of killer drivers.

4 Do you think that the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs should reflect the same culpability (and therefore the same maximum penalty) as causing death by dangerous driving? 

Yes.

The strongest possible message needs to be sent out to people who get behind the wheel while under the influence of drink or drugs. In the eyes of many right-thinking people, there should be no distinction between those who cause death by dangerous driving and those who cause death by careless driving while under the influence. At some point in proceedings, both have made the decision to take massive risks that place other road users in serious danger and, ultimately, both have gone on to kill as a result of their recklessness. Both should be treated with the same level of seriousness.

One of the most heartbreaking cases on our patch in recent years involved 16-year-old Jamie Still in Otley on December 31, 2010, who was killed when he was hit by a driver nearly two times over the drink drive limit. Max McRae, 21, then of Warren Lane, Arthington, was jailed for four years after he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while being unfit through drink. Outside court, Jamie's mum Karen said "This sentence doesn't send any message out because four years with good behaviour and he'll be out sooner, and people will just think the law's not harsh enough.”

Her views are shared by many, including this newspaper.

5 Should consideration be given to a longer minimum period of disqualification for offenders convicted of any causing death by driving offence? 

Yes.

Driving is a privilege and comes with a responsibility to keep others safe on the roads. Once that privilege has been abused, resulting in death, there should be no second chances behind the wheel for the offending driver. Therefore, those who kill while behind the wheel should automatically forfeit their right to drive ever again.

6 Are there any other driving offences relating to causing death or serious injury that you think should be changed? 

Yes.

Causing death or serious injury through using a hand-held mobile phone while driving should also be given consideration. There are numerous examples where such action has had lethal consequences so to continue to do so in the face of such evidence is clearly reckless behaviour on the part of a driver. Hands-free mobile phone equipment, which is effectively similar to using a radio or satellite navigation or even car heating controls, is widely available and would eliminate many of the dangers. So there is a strong argument that hand-held mobile phone usage should be treated in a similar way to drink and drug usage.

A strong example of why this should be given consideration came in 29/11/2011 when Stephen Rawlinson, then 26, of Upper Grange Avenue, Allerton, Bradford, was convicted of causing a motorcyclist’s death. The court heard that he was distracted by composing or sending a text message when he “wiped out” the motorcyclist on a roundabout in Saltaire. Rawlinson was jailed for three years.

7 Does the equalities statement correctly identify the extent of the impacts of the proposed options for reform set out in this consultation paper? 

Yes.

CLICK HERE TO GIVE YOUR OWN RESONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION BEFORE TODAY'S DEADLINE

MORE TOP STORIES