Death by Driving Public Consultation

It is of assistance to sentencers to provide consistent language in sentencing statements and useful for public reference.

We offer qualified agreement. W consider that although the cross referencing is clear to practitioners it may be confusing to the public.

We appreciate that this is a difficult balancing exercise but from the language used we are not persuaded that the public and more importantly the press will understand that these guidelines must be read alongside the existing guidelines. It is not uncommon for these offences to be committed by young persons who are also subject to the guidelines affecting them and it may lead to a perception of undue leniency where the is an overlap in the application of the two guidelines.

This is an objective and logical approach. It is difficult to differential which among some of the offences is the more serious and could lead to unintended consequences/ nuances which are avoided if the statutory order is followed.

This feeds back to our earlier point about the difficulties inherent in cross referencing between the guidelines and whether the public/ press would do that even if sentencers themselves do. We consider that if the public were to look at the guideline it should be clear on the face of it what the sentence is expected to achieve and what they are not attempting to achieve. This relates to the difficult issue of sentencing on the basis of culpability and not placing a value on human life.

We are of the view that for the lay person the nuances between substantial and significant are difficult to understand.

We agree with the reasons at paragraph 49 of the consultation.

We consider that starting points are helpful to the sentence and to the public. We see no reason to depart from the Definitive Guidelines in this regard. If there is no starting point sentencers will simply revert to the English guidelines in any event and will no doubt be encouraged to do so by pleaders. Equally the public will have an expectation that the top line is the starting point.

Any alternative approach could lead to unrealistic expectations.

These are all important elements of the sentence and are often misunderstood or unknown about to the public. If the objective is to promote a wider understanding and transparency in sentencing, there is no logic in excluding them.

The relevance of these factors will be a matter for the discretion of the sentence in the individual circumstances of the case.

These factors may nudge the offence from one category to another.

It does not mitigate culpability. The offender may well have had no choice and should not have been driving in the first place.

If the guidelines reflect current sentencing practice, as we believe they should, then it should not have a significant impact on sentences going forward.

We consider that this purpose of having the guidelines is very important and legitimate. We have a concern that the guidelines may not be accessed and referred to by either public or the press and the sentences particularly in relation to death by careless driving will continue to be sensationalised, misunderstood and accordingly criticised.

Public awareness and assistance to sentencers in relation to ranges.

None. Sentencers currently routinely use the English Definitive Guidelines.

None. This was previously dealt with in our response to the impact statement.

We consider it right and proper that Scotland should have its own set of guidelines rather than simply deferring the English guidelines which are followed in most cases. However the real benefit would be if they increase public awareness as to how these cases are sentences and educate interested parties in the realistic range of outcomes where a person tragically loses their life in a situation where the culpability level is relatively low when compared with that outcome.