RoadPeace member, Chris Barrow, has shared his thoughts and experiences with the criminal justice system as part of National Road Victim Month and in support of our Fix Our Broken Justice System campaign.
. 
Chris Barrow, left and Lorraine, right. Chris shared the following: “Lorraine died at the scene, in front of our home that we have lived in since May 1995, and three days after our 35th wedding anniversary. She was approximately 1 metre from safety. We see the very spot that Lorraine was killed every time we drive out of our driveway, walk up the garden or look out the window. The mental health issues for the family are deep and continuous and not, in my opinion, considered by the Sentencing Council or the Judiciary.”
By Chris Barrow
“In an environment that is designed to be intimidating, we rely on independent judges to interpret evidence, listen to over-zealous defence advocates, prosecution advocates that give their own opinions misinterpreting or embellishing evidence, and apply their own life experience and opinions to sentencing council guidelines. How on earth do you expect to get consistency?”
What is the Sentencing Council’s stated aim?
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales promotes greater consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Council produces guidelines on sentencing for the judiciary and criminal justice professionals and aims to increase public understanding of sentencing.
The Council must also:
- consider the impact on victims of sentencing decisions
- monitor the application of the guidelines, and
- when developing guidelines, promote understanding of, and public confidence in, sentencing and the criminal justice system”
Source: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/
Notice the lack of consideration given to public safety, saving lives or creating a deterrent!
What is the make up of the Sentencing Council?
The Sentencing Council (SC) is made up of 14 members none of which appear to be victims of road crime or in fact any other crime. If you have not suffered major trauma you can not judge its affects.
Is the SC fit for purpose? In my opinion and experience, it is not! There are too many intangibles, too many opinions as opposed to facts, and too much ambiguity. It certainly does not meet the remit “The Council must also consider the impact on victims of sentencing decisions”.
“… whilst maintaining the independence of the judiciary.” Is this remit counter productive? For the SC to achieve its aims it is necessary for the judiciary to “buy into” the whole process. That does not mean that the guidelines have to have so much flexibility that it fails to meet its most basic aims. Surely it is more logical to collaborate, working together as a team to better achieve the stated and measurable goals.
Why is there no victims present on the council? I do not understand why there cannot be a number of sub committees consisting of victims. These sub committees could address issues based on actual real life experience; they have lived through it. The sub-committee could address specific topics and report back to a nominated full committee member. At the very least surely victims could be seconded to the committee as and when required.
With no victims present on the SC it is fair to say that no representative on the SC has any experience of what it is like to suffer the loss of a loved one at the hands of a dangerous driver or the effect on the mental health of members of the victims family when a lenient sentence is handed down. Lorraine, my beloved wife, was killed riding her bicycle. She was approximately one metre from the safety of our driveway. The driver was guilty of driving in a built-up area at a speed well in excess of the legal limit. She did not brake or make an evasive manoeuvre until after she ploughed into Lorraine the car coming to a stop some 60 metres from the collision location. The CPS charged Ms Hamer with the following: “She did not pay attention and her driving failed to take account of the prevailing road conditions and the victim being a vulnerable road user.” For being guilty of causing death by dangerous driving Ms Hamer was given a 6 month curfew, 200 hours community service, a one year suspended sentence and a 30 month driving ban.
Additionally, she gave a “No Comment” interview so, added to the lenient sentence, the family have to suffer the mental anguish of not knowing what the offender was actually doing before causing the death of Lorraine.
The SC set guidelines that put the offenders rights first. This is wrong! Do the guidelines consider the mental health of the victims family? No! Do the guidelines seek to establish if the victim was a sole carer? No! Do the guidelines consider how it affects the victims job or education? No! The list goes on. Unlike the offender the victims family is not interviewed by the probation service, or asked to submit psychological assessment, or doctors analysis.
The Council must also monitor the application of the guidelines.
I have yet to find out how this is achieved. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) provide details of sentences handed down but I am unable to find details of each individual case. Without this information it is not possible to produce evidence as to whether or not the SC guidelines are effective in achieving consistency. I would welcome the opportunity to conduct such an in-depth analysis of cases of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving. In the absence of such an analysis here are just 3 cases of which none involve alcohol consumption or drugs.
Raymond Treharne, 74, was given a nine-month suspended sentence and a seven-year driving ban for causing death by careless driving.
Source: Cycling: Bridgend family ‘got no justice’ for son’s crash death – BBC News
Shakoor Ahmed, 46, was given a 6 year 10 months prison sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. He was disqualified from driving, which will last until two years after his release. Shakoor Ahmed was doing 53mph in a 40mph zone (32.5 per cent over the speed limit).
Source: Taxi driver jailed for killing man, 16 minutes after police stop – BBC News
Victoria Hamer, 26, was given a 6 month curfew, 200 hours community service, a one year suspended sentence, and a 30 month driving ban for causing death by dangerous driving. Victoria Hamer was doing a minimum of 44mph in a 30mph zone (46.67 per cent over the speed limit).
Source: Driver who killed Somerset cyclist given suspended sentence – BBC News
Of course there will be nuances in each case but the difference in sentences handed down and driving bans awarded are extreme which highlights the inconsistency in judgments. The system does not fulfil its remit. It is broken.
There is another side of sentencing that needs attention. The discrepancy in sentences handed down for different crimes.
Jamie Arnold, 33, was sentenced to five months in jail for intentionally causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress.
Source: Rio Ferdinand abuser Jamie Arnold jailed for six months – BBC News
I am not condoning racism in any form, quite the opposite, Mr Arnold got the minimum he deserve but, you must see that 5 months in prison for making racist gestures as opposed to a suspended sentence of 12 months for taking the life by dangerous driving is unbalanced and unjust.
Robert Biggs, 30, pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm and was jailed for 24 weeks. He was also given a 10-year football banning order and ordered to pay £500; plus a victim surcharge of £128 and £85 costs.
Source: Billy Sharp: Fan jailed for headbutting player at end of match – BBC News
Again I am not condoning violence in any form, Mr Biggs got the minimum he deserved. But again there is a disparity between causing actual bodily harm and causing death by dangerous driving but, equally important is the attitude of the judge when stating that the sentence had to have an element of deterrence.
How confident is the general public in the SC and the criminal justice system in general?
It is interesting that the SC commissioned a survey, “Public knowledge of and confidence in the criminal justice system and sentencing: 2022 research” whose results, on page 6, state “The majority of respondents perceived that sentences for death by dangerous driving and assault are too lenient (73 per cent and 70 per cent respectively).” To be honest my families experience would put the percentage higher.
Other results from surveys that are worth a mention. “Public confidence in sentencing council December 2022 – 52 per cent of respondents said they were confident that the Criminal Justice System is effective and 53 per cent said they were confident that it is fair. Are these percentages really something to be proud of?
House of Commons Justice Committee’s survey 2023 – 71 per cent feel that the criminal punishments is too lenient. No need to comment. The percentage speaks for itself.
Why are we forced to accept the appalling rate of deaths on our roads and the distinct lack of progress in reducing such tragedies?
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) in its Manifesto for Road Safety 2024 states “Progress in reducing road traffic deaths and serious injuries in the UK has flatlined since 2010. Annually, over 30,000 people are killed or seriously injured – this is the equivalent of a medium-sized UK town suffering a catastrophic burden of injury every year.”
Source: https://www.pacts.org.uk/15769-2/?hilite=manifesto
From RoadPeace, and other sources, we know that on average there are approximately 5 deaths on our roads per day (over 1700 of the 30,000).
These figures clearly show that the guidelines are not set at a level to deter which, surely, should be the case. At the same time these figures show that by allowing the judiciary so much independence, it to, is not working.
Can technology play a role?
Of course it can. However, it appears to me that the drive towards judicial independence, sticking to the old ways, is preferred to creating a system that would provide more consistency, fairness and transparency. We live in the 21st century where our lives are dominated by technology for example Artificial Intelligence (AI). Uses of AI include, but are not limited to, healthcare to help analyse patient clinical trial and genetic data, with the potential to improve precision medicine, robots in factories including car production, autonomous cars, online shopping, cybersecurity fighting disinformation, etc… The list is endless so why is AI not used in our justice system to aid judges in making consistent judgments?
I am not suggesting that we solely rely on technology but, surely, feeding known tangible facts and evidence into a system with all the historical data would, at the very least, help the judge make an informed decision resulting in a more consistent, and fairer system. Providing a deterrent, creating safer roads, and saving lives. Surely saving lives should be added to the remit of the SC. The more lives that are saved the less strain on the emergency services, the courts, and the prison service. For those that are money motivated saving lives would be financially beneficial.
Why should causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving be seen as any less importance by the judiciary than murder, manslaughter or serious sexual offences?
It should not. A life has been lost with devastating consequences. Victims and families deserve more from the judiciary. It should be classed as “Motoring Manslaughter” and not presided over by a Recorder [part time Judge]. Murder cases are tried by High Court Judges and some senior approved Crown Court Judges. Serious sexual offences can only be tried by Judges with the appropriate approval of the authorities. Road Crime should receive no less. This information comes, in part, from a retired barrister and part-time judge, Nic Atkinson KC. His blog can be found at Treat road death as motor manslaughter, urges former judge – RoadPeace
In an environment that is designed to be intimidating we rely on independent judges, to interpret evidence, listen to over zealous defence advocates, prosecution advocates that give there own opinions misinterpreting or embellishing evidence, and apply their own life experience and opinions to the sentencing council guidelines how on earth do you expect to get consistency? It does not encourage consistency! It is outdated! It is broken! Put simply, it is not fit for purpose in its current form!
To follow, further analysis and comments on Sentencing Council guidelines relating too:
- Determining the offence category, culpability
- Factors increasing seriousness, aggravating factors
- Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation, excuses
Updated on: 14 August 2024