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.

该研究将在特定的驾驶罪行中研究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》通过驾驶犯罪造成了两个新的造成死亡的新导致死亡：通过粗心的驾驶并通过驾驶而导致死亡，而无人保证，无牌或取消资格造成死亡。这些犯罪是有趣且引起争议的，因为，要使用刑法理论家采用的短语，它们本质上是“建设性的”：证明犯罪所需的一切是，驾驶员犯下了基本的罪行（粗心的驾驶或驾驶，而没有保险，而没有保险）则导致另一个人的死亡；不需要其他责备的心态，例如对死亡风险的远见。传统上，人们对建设性犯罪有一些反对，特别是在法律学者中，因为造成的危害可能与犯罪者在犯下基本犯罪方面的责备相当遥远。但是，这种罪行的影响是三倍。首先，他们将更具污名化的标签附加到罪犯：作为“死亡的原因”。其次，缺乏证明与造成的危害有关的怪罪的要求，这意味着这种罪行比需要男士犯罪的“常规”犯罪要容易得多。第三，他们为法院提供了更加严重的量刑权力：从驾驶的取消时期升级，再加上罚款（根据旧法律）到最高五年监禁（在新法律下）。该研究的主要目的是探讨这些新罪行对此类调查后警察和皇家检察官对道路死亡事件的调查和起诉的影响，并研究法律改革对“行动法律”的影响。这项研究本质上是经验的。它建立在对2006年法案颁布之前发生的致命碰撞造成的刑事指控的早期研究的基础上，因此为法律变更（或没有）影响刑事司法机构的实践提供了独特的比较。它将涉及访问与道路交通碰撞有关的警察和CPS文件，以收集数据：决定不起诉的案件数量；在任何情况下，提出的指控和结果（包括认罪和判决）。尽管理论上有理由反对通过驾驶犯罪来导致死亡的新导致死亡，但实际上可能会产生负面影响和积极影响，而这些敲门效应值得探索。在制定新的罪行时，政府似乎并未考虑过这种变化可能对诸如嫌疑人认罪或CPS接受认罪的可能性的影响，以接受较小的罪行。尽管我以前的研究发现，粗心驾驶的罪行与危险驾驶造成死亡之间存在一个“灰色”区域，但它还发现警察和CPS通常不同意要指控哪种罪行。新法律没有做的是阐明粗心大意和危险驾驶之间的区别；检察官仍然会有一个艰难的决定，直到现在他们可能不愿意指控两项罪行中的较小罪，因为他们知道有拘留刑期的可能性。