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

这项研究将审查实体刑法与刑事司法机构在具体驾驶罪方面的做法之间的关系。《2006年道路安全法》规定了两种新的驾驶死亡罪：粗心驾驶造成死亡和无保险、无执照或无资格驾驶造成死亡。这些罪行是有趣和有争议的，因为用刑法理论家的话来说，它们在本质上是“建设性的”：证明罪行所需的一切就是司机犯了基本的罪行（粗心驾驶或驾驶时没有保险等）。并且在这样做的过程中造成了另一个人的死亡;不需要额外的应受责备的精神状态，例如预见到死亡的危险。传统上，特别是在法律的学者中，对推定犯罪有一些反对意见，因为所造成的损害可能与犯罪者在实施基本犯罪中的罪责相距甚远。然而，这种罪行的影响是三方面的。首先，他们给罪犯贴上了一个更污名化的标签：“致人死亡”。第二，由于没有规定必须就所造成的伤害证明罪责，这意味着这类罪行比需要犯罪意图的“传统”罪行更容易证明。第三，新法例赋予法庭更严厉的判刑权力：由取消驾驶资格及罚款（根据旧法例），增至最高监禁五年（根据新法例）。这项研究的主要目的是探讨这些新罪行对警方和刑事检控官在调查和检控交通意外死亡事件后所产生的影响，并研究法律改革对“现行法律”的影响。这项研究将是经验性的。它建立在2006年法案颁布之前对致命碰撞造成的刑事指控的早期研究的基础上，因此为法律的变化如何影响（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。它将涉及查阅与道路交通碰撞有关的警察和CPS档案，以便收集以下数据：决定不起诉的案件数量;在任何案件中提出的指控和结果（包括认罪和判刑）。我较早时进行的研究，使我得出多项结论，认为涉及种族歧视罪行的检控工作性质独特，并认为有需要引入新的不小心驾驶引致他人死亡罪行（请参阅随附的著作清单）。虽然理论上有理由反对设立新的驾驶引致他人死亡罪行，但在实践上可能会有负面和正面的影响，这些连锁效应值得探讨。在制定新的罪行时，政府似乎没有考虑到这种变化可能对嫌疑人认罪或CPS接受对较轻罪行的认罪的可能性等问题产生的影响。虽然我先前的研究发现，在不小心驾驶和危险驾驶导致死亡之间存在一个“灰色”地带，但它也发现，警方和CPS在指控哪种罪行方面往往意见一致。新法律没有做的是澄清粗心和危险驾驶之间的区别;检察官仍然会面临一个艰难的决定，只是现在他们可能不太愿意指控两项罪行中较轻的一项，因为他们知道有可能被判处监禁。

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.