Prosecuting Drivers Causing Death: Prosecutorial Decision-Making following the Road Safety Act 2006

这项研究将在具体的驾驶罪行范围内审查实体刑法与刑事司法机构的做法之间的关系。2006年《道路安全法》增加了两项新的驾驶致死罪行：粗心驾驶致人死亡和在没有保险、无照驾驶或取消驾驶资格的情况下驾驶致人死亡。这些罪行既有趣又有争议，因为用刑法理论家的一句话来说，它们本质上是“建设性的”：只要司机犯了基本罪行(粗心大意驾驶或在没有保险的情况下驾驶等)，就可以证明这一罪行。并在这样做时导致另一个人的死亡；不需要额外的应受责备的精神状态，例如预见死亡的风险。传统上，人们反对推定犯罪，特别是在法学界，因为所造成的损害可能与犯罪人犯下基本罪行的罪责相去甚远。然而，这些罪行的影响有三个方面。首先，他们给犯罪者贴上了一个更具耻辱性的标签：“导致死亡的人”。其次，由于没有就所造成的损害证明责任的要求，这意味着这类罪行比要求有过错的“传统”罪行更容易证明。第三，它们赋予法院更严厉的判刑权力：从取消驾驶资格加罚款(根据旧法律)增加到最高5年监禁(根据新法律)。这项研究的主要目的是探讨这些新罪行对警方和刑事检察官在调查后对道路死亡事件的调查和起诉产生的影响，并审查法律改革对“现行法律”的影响。这项研究将是经验性的。它建立在对2006年法案颁布前发生的致命碰撞造成的刑事指控的早期研究的基础上，因此为法律变化如何影响(或没有)影响刑事司法机构的做法提供了一个独特的比较点。这将涉及查阅警方和CPS关于道路交通碰撞的档案，以收集以下方面的数据：决定不起诉的案件数量；任何案件被告上法庭的指控和结果(包括认罪和判刑)。我在较早前的研究得出了一些结论，认为在道路交通碰撞案件中提出起诉的独特性质，以及是否适宜引入一项新的因不小心驾驶而致死的罪行(请参阅我所附的出版物列表)。虽然理论上有理由反对新的驾驶罪致人死亡，但在实践中可能会有消极和积极的影响，这些连锁反应值得探讨。在制定新的罪行时，政府似乎没有考虑到这样的改变可能对一些问题产生的影响，例如嫌疑人认罪的可能性或中央刑事法院接受对较轻罪行的抗辩的可能性。虽然我先前的研究发现，不小心驾驶罪行与危险驾驶引致他人死亡的罪行之间存在“灰色”地带，但我亦发现，警方与警察在控告哪项罪行方面，往往意见一致。新法律没有做的是澄清不小心驾驶和危险驾驶之间的区别；检察官仍将面临一个艰难的决定，只是现在他们可能不那么不愿意起诉两项罪行中较轻的一项，因为他们知道可能会被判处监禁。

The research will examine the relationship between the substantive criminal law and the practice of criminal justice agencies in the context of specific driving offences. The Road Safety Act 2006 created two new causing death by driving offences: causing death by careless driving and causing death by driving whilst uninsured, unlicensed or disqualified. These offences are interesting and controversial because, to use a phrase adopted by criminal law theorists, they are 'constructive' in nature: all that is needed to prove the offence is that the driver committed the underlying offence (careless driving or driving whilst uninsured etc.) and in doing so caused the death of another person; no additional blameworthy state of mind, such as foresight of a risk of death, is required. Traditionally there has been some opposition to constructive crimes, particularly amongst legal academics, since the harm caused may be fairly remote from the blameworthiness of the offender in committing the underlying offence. The effect of such offences, however, is three-fold. Firstly they attach a more stigmatic label to the offender: as a 'causer of death'. Secondly, the lack of a requirement to prove blameworthiness in relation to the harm caused means that such offences are much easier to prove than 'conventional' offences that require mens rea. Thirdly, they provide the courts with far more severe sentencing powers: escalating from a period of disqualification from driving coupled with a fine (under the old law) to up to five years' imprisonment (under the new). The main objective of the study is to explore the impact that these new offences have had on the investigation and prosecution of road death incidents by the police and Crown Prosecutors subsequent to such investigation and examine the impact of law reform on the 'law in action'. The study will be empirical in nature. It builds on an earlier study of criminal charges resulting from fatal collisions conducted prior to the enactment of the 2006 Act, and so provides a unique point of comparison for how legal changes have (or have not) affected the practices of the criminal justice agencies. It will involve access to police and CPS files relating to road traffic collisions, in order to collect data on: the number of cases in which a decision was taken not to prosecute; the charges brought in any case going to court and the outcome (including plea and sentence).My earlier study brought me to a number of conclusions about the unique nature of prosecutions in case of RDIs and the desirability of introducing a new causing death by careless driving offence (please see my attached list of publications). Whilst there are theoretical reasons to object to a new causing death by driving offence, there may be both negative and positive effects to it in practice, and these knock-on effects warrant exploration. In creating the new offences the Government seems not to have considered the impact such a change could have on issues such as the likelihood of a suspect to plead guilty or of the CPS to accept a plea to a lesser offence. Whilst my previous study found that there was a 'grey' area between the offence of careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving, it also found that the police and CPS were more often than not in agreement as to which offence to charge. What the new law has not done is to clarify the distinction between careless and dangerous driving; prosecutors will still be left with a difficult decision, only now they may be less reluctant to charge the lesser of the two offences, knowing that there is the potential for a custodial sentence.