Causing Death By Dangerous Driving

By MAJ Law
on 10 April 2024

Positivebreathtest

Death by dangerous driving is the most serious driving offence in the UK. In 2023, the government increased the courts sentencing powers to a maximum of life imprisonment for those who cause the death of another. This sentence is on-par with those convicted of murder, rape, arson and terrorism offences. Causing death by dangerous driving also carries an unlimited driving ban and extended retest. The minimum driving disqualification is 5 years.

The average life sentence in 2024 was 16.5 years. Those released from prison after serving a 'life' sentence will spend the rest of their lives on licence (also known as 'parole' or 'probation'). Whilst on licence, you’re still serving your sentence, but you may be asked to do work that is unpaid, meet regularly with your ‘offended manager’, get treatment for an addiction or complete an education or training course. If you commit an action whilst on licence that you’re barred from doing (i.e. driving), then you could go back to prison. Similarly, if you miss meetings or appointments without good reason you will likely be sent back to jail.

A life sentence always lasts for life, whatever the length of the minimum term.

What is the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving in 2024?

According to annual research conducted by the Sentencing Council, 93% of people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving receive an immediate custodial sentence. This figure is broadly consistent year on year.

Section 86(2) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the maximum sentence for an offence under s.1 RTA 1988 (committed after 28^th June 2022) from 14 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. According to the Prison Reform Trust, in 2023, Courts in England and Wales sent more people to prison than almost all other European countries. Many of these were for non-violent crimes including driving offences.

If you are convicted of causing death by dangerous driving it is almost certain that you will be sent to prison (see below).

The average (mean) custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving in 2020 was almost 5 years in prison. It is likely this number will increase following the recent change to the maximum term. Some estimates suggest a 'new' average (mean) term of 7 years in prison.

A quick look at the sentencing guidelines

Note: There is no statutory maximum disqualification period for dangerous driving offences.

Currently, the MINIMUM penalty for 'dangerous driving' (without death) is a one year disqualification with a compulsory re-test. The MAXIMUM penalty is two years custody. Nearly half of all offenders sentenced for dangerous driving receive immediate custody.

For 'death by dangerous driving' the MINIMUM penalty is a five year disqualification with a compulsory extended re-test. The MAXIMUM penalty is life imprisonment.

Sentencing for a charge of death by dangerous driving is complex and requires a full and thorough investigation before any sentencing decisions can be made. In order for this to happen, the seriousness of the offence is broken down into 3 levels.

Level 1 - This carries the most serious penalty and is defined as driving that involves a deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and a disregard for the danger that this may cause to others, e,g driving whilst intoxicated. This carries a risk of life imprisonment.

Level 2 - This is defined as driving that could create a substantial risk of danger. It is less serious than Level 1 but still has the potential to have serious implications e.g driving whilst impaired or speeding. This carries a risk of 4-7 yers imprisonment.

Level 3 - This is the least serious and is defined as driving that creates a significant risk of danger, i.e driving whilst distracted. This carries a risk of 2-5 years imprisonment.

So how is it possible to defend a death by dangerous driving charge?

Causing Death by Dangerous Driving Defences

Just because you are charged or suspected of dangerous driving does not mean that you are guilty (even if your vehicle caused the death of another person). There are several defences which can be applied to a death by dangerous driving charge, depending on the severity of the case.

Our team of driving defence lawyers regularly represent clients charged with serious driving offences, including death by dangerous driving. It is critically important to challenge the accuracy of any factual evidence presented by the prosecution. Evidence is often flawed, unreliable or entirely inadmissible, particularly evidence from witnesses and accident enactments or reconstructions. Remember the police may be under pressure from the victim's family, the press or the CPS to bring a prosecution to court. We would also want to consider any medical evidence, post-mortem examinations and expert witness evidence. The aim in doing to is to establish one of two things;

The standard of your driving did not fall far below a careful & competent driver (i.e. it was not dangerous), or;
The driving in question was not the cause of the death.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be possible to advance the defence of automatism.

Automatism

Automatism, in a legal setting, is the involuntary action or reaction of a person without intent. In most instances, it is caused by factors such as physical or mental illness or injury. An example of this may be a driver who suffers a seizure or other medical episode, while behind the wheel, which causes them to suddenly and without warning lose control of their vehicle. Believe it or not, a driver suffering from a sneezing fit could also be considered automatism. The condition cannot be pre-existing and known to the driver, nor can it be self-induced.

In Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963), Lord Denning described an act as involuntary when it is done ‘by the muscles without any control of the mind’ or ‘by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing’. Automatism enables a defendant to argue that he should not be held accountable for actions taken where he had no conscious knowledge of those actions. For this defence to be successful, the circumstance that led to the loss of conscious knowledge must be immediate and unforeseeable.

Mechanical Defect

A driver may have a defence to death by dangerous driving due to a mechanical fault with the vehicle, but only if it was a “sudden total loss of control in no way due to any fault on the part of the driver”.

However, the law is very clear in that the defence does not apply where the driver knew (or ought to have known) that the defect existed before the sudden loss of control occurred. So, a driver could not claim that his vehicle did not stop in time when he knew the brakes were faulty. In the case of Spurge it was held that the mechanical defect defence did not apply where the defendant had bought a car which he knew swerved to the right whenever he applied the brakes. Regardless, the mechanical defect defence can still be an effective way to challenge an allegation of causing death by dangerous driving because the CPS must prove that either the vehicle was not faulty or, if it was, that the defendant knew about the defect. Attempting to prove that a vehicle was not faulty is practicality impossible, particularly if it sustained significant damage during the incident. The CPS are normally only ever able to suggest there is was 'no evidence' of a mechanical fault, rather than to say conclusively that it was not faulty. Similarly, attempting to prove that a defendant knew of a defect is equally as difficult.

Duress and Necessity

Another defence that could be advanced, so long as the facts of the case allow, is necessity. Here it must be shown that the defendant’s actions were proportionate in order to escape death or serious injury to themselves or another person. In R v Quayle [2005] 1 All ER 988, it was held that "an imminent danger of physical injury" was required. The threat may relate to the defendant or a member of his immediate family or alternatively to a person for whose safety the defendant would reasonably regard himself as responsible: R v Wright [2000] Crim. L.R. 510, CA.

If the defendant drove because he was pressured, coerced or threatened, the defence of duress may apply.

The defence has been defined in Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, p.9, in the following way:

An act, which would otherwise be a crime, may in some cases be excused if the defendant can show that:

it was done only to avoid consequences which could not otherwise be avoided and which if they had followed, would have inflicted upon him, or upon others whom he was bound to protect, inevitable and irreparable evil;
that no more was done than was reasonably necessary for that purpose; and
that the evil inflicted by it was not disproportionate to the evil avoided.

In R v Conway [1989] Q.B. 290, the Court of Appeal held that:

"necessity can only be a defence to a charge of reckless driving where the facts establish duress of circumstances, i.e., where the defendant was constrained by circumstances to drive as he did to avoid death or serious bodily harm to himself or some other person. Whether duress of circumstances is called duress or necessity does not matter."

Conway was applied in R v Martin, 88 Cr.App.R. 343, CA where Simon Brown J stated:

Firstly, English law does, in extreme circumstances, recognise a defence of necessity. Most commonly this defence arises as duress, that is, pressure on the accuseds will from the wrongful threats or violence of another. Equally however it can arise from other objective dangers threatening the accused or others. Arising thus it is conveniently called duress of circumstances.

Second, the defence is available only if, from an objective standpoint, the accused can be said to be acting reasonably and proportionately in order to avoid a threat of death or serious injury.

Third, assuming the defence to be open to the accused on his account of the facts, the issue should be left to the jury, who should be directed to determine these two questions: first, was the accused, or may he have been, impelled to act as he did because as a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious physical injury would result second, if so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to that situation by acting as the accused acted? If the answer to both those questions was yes then the defence of necessity would have been established."

Some other defences to Causing Death By Dangerous Driving might include;

Seeing who was at fault - did you actually cause the accident?
Arguing that your standard of driving was NOT considered dangerous in accordance with the definition of it in the sentencing guidelines. This can also be argued if there was dashcam or CCTV footage, or witnesses that were at the scene that prove your driving was not dangerous.
Where witnesses can prove your driving was not dangerous, a lack of credible witnesses can also be a defence where there was no footage to fall back on for evidence.
Unknown defects on the vehicle which you couldn't have known about.
Medical conditions which you were unaware of, which caused you to suddenly lose control of the vehicle.

But what other options are there if you can't fully defend the charge and get an acquittal?

Negotiating a plea deal with the CPS

The CPS want to secure a conviction - whatever it takes. We've all heard of defendant's accepting plea deals days before trial. The reason this happens so often is down to - I'm afraid to say it - bottle. As a criminal case continues and the trial date looms, tension builds on both sides. The CPS are wondering if their witnesses will hold up in cross examination. They begin to second guess the strength of their case. Ultimately, they 'bottle it' and accept, or offer, a plea deal - usually one which is extremely favourable to the defendant. This is one advantage in taking the case to trial rather than pleading guilty.

In a death by dangerous driving case, a plea deal might include;

A plea to 'causing death by careless driving' (rather than dangerous)
The removal of aggravating factors, such as speeding or mobile phone use
An agreement to withhold any evidence of drink or drug consumption
Where multiple people are killed or injured, a 'totality' sentence
An acceptance that you played a lesser role in the death

The purpose of a plea deal is to encourage a defendant to plead guilty and to reduce the overall sentence imposed by the court.

Of course, in circumstances where you have a full defence to the allegation, we would not be considering a plea deal. Our focus is on winning your case and avoiding a conviction.

For more information on 'death-by' offences, read our FAQ blog

What happens if you're charged with causing death by dangerous driving?
Can you go to prison for causing death by dangerous driving?
Have you been accused of causing death by dangerous driving?
Causing death by dangerous driving defences
Will mitigation help me avoid a prison sentence?
Can you get Legal Aid for causing death by dangerous driving?
Case Studies and Case Examples of our clients

Thinking of pleading guilty?

Our Case Studies take a look a real cases involving real people. You may also be interested in reading about court hearings in the Magistrates' Court and Sentencing Guidelines. You can also view our case studies page for more information.