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

起诉导致死亡的司机：根据《2006 年道路安全法》做出的检察决策

基本信息

批准号：
AH/I023147/1
负责人：
Sally Cunningham
金额：
$ 9.53万
依托单位：
University of Leicester
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2011
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2011 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FI023147%2F1
关键词：
Prosecuting Drivers Causing Death Prosecutorial

项目摘要

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.

该研究将探讨具体驾驶犯罪背景下实体刑法与刑事司法机构实践之间的关系。 2006 年《道路安全法》新增了两种因驾驶致人死亡的犯罪行为：因粗心驾驶致人死亡和因无保险、无证或吊销资格时驾驶致人死亡。这些罪行是有趣且有争议的，因为用刑法理论家采用的一句话来说，它们本质上是“推定的”：证明犯罪所需的只是驾驶员犯下了潜在的罪行（粗心驾驶或未投保时驾驶等） .) 并因此导致他人死亡；不需要额外的应受谴责的心态，例如预见到死亡风险。传统上，人们对推定犯罪存在一些反对意见，特别是在法律学者中，因为所造成的伤害可能与犯罪者实施基本犯罪所应受的罪责相去甚远。然而，此类犯罪行为的影响是三重的。首先，他们给罪犯贴上一个更加污名化的标签：“致死者”。其次，缺乏证明与所造成的伤害相关的应受谴责的要求，意味着此类犯罪比需要犯罪意图的“传统”犯罪更容易证明。第三，它们为法院提供了更为严厉的量刑权力：从取消驾驶资格并处以罚款（根据旧法律）升级到最高五年的监禁（根据新法律）。该研究的主要目的是探讨这些新罪行对警方和皇家检察官在调查后对道路死亡事件进行调查和起诉的影响，并研究法律改革对“现行法律”的影响。该研究本质上是实证研究。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，因此为法律变化如何影响（或没有）刑事司法机构的做法提供了独特的比较点。它将涉及查阅与道路交通碰撞有关的警方和 CPS 档案，以收集以下数据：决定不起诉的案件数量；在任何案件中对法庭提出的指控以及结果（包括认罪和判刑）。我之前的研究使我得出了一些关于 RDI 案件中起诉的独特性质以及引入新的因疏忽造成死亡的可取性的结论驾驶违法行为（请参阅我所附的出版物清单）。虽然理论上有理由反对新的驾驶犯罪导致死亡的行为，但在实践中可能会产生消极和积极的影响，这些连锁反应值得探索。在制定新的罪行时，政府似乎没有考虑这种变化可能对嫌疑人认罪或皇家检察署接受较轻罪行认罪的可能性等问题产生的影响。虽然我之前的研究发现，粗心驾驶罪与危险驾驶致人死亡罪之间存在“灰色”地带，但同时也发现，警方和皇家检察署对于指控哪项罪名往往意见不一致。新法没有明确粗心驾驶与危险驾驶的区别；检察官仍将面临一个艰难的决定，只是现在他们可能不太愿意指控这两种罪行中较轻的罪行，因为他们知道有可能被判处监禁。