Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

Alex Barros-Curtis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, although I cannot honestly say that it is a pleasure to do so. We are here because people have lost their lives on our roads. Families have lost children, parents, partners and friends, and too many are left feeling that the justice system has not reflected the enormity of their loss. This debate is about accountability, public confidence and whether the law does enough to punish those responsible and deter others from making the same devastating choices.

I want to begin with the tragic case of my constituent Keely Morgan, a 15-year-old girl whose life was cut short while crossing the road in Cardiff. She was a much-loved daughter and a cherished granddaughter, sister and friend with so much to look forward to. On 1 May 2023, Keely was struck by a car while crossing at a pedestrian crossing in Caerau, in my constituency. She died at the scene.

The court heard that the driver was travelling above the speed limit, had been driving erratically and showing off, and had removed the vehicle’s black box, invalidating his insurance. The judge described him as an “irresponsible show-off”. He received 16 months’ imprisonment for causing death by careless driving, and 11 months for causing death by driving while uninsured, to be served concurrently. He was also disqualified from driving for two years and eight months, yet he was released after serving only around six and a half months.

Keely’s family must live with their loss for the rest of their lives. Her mother, Sian Morgan, has channelled her grief into campaigning for change. Her petition has attracted nearly 12,000 signatures, and I am pleased that Sian is in the Public Gallery today. I pay tribute to her determination to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same tragedy. Her campaign deserves to be heard, and, as her Member of Parliament, I will ensure that it is. This House must take seriously the questions that it raises.

I recognise that courts must consider the individual circumstances of every case. The distinction between careless and dangerous driving is important, and not every offence should result in the same sentence, but where a driver’s actions demonstrate a serious disregard for the safety of others and a life is lost, we must ask whether our sentencing framework adequately reflects such conduct.

Sadly, these concerns are not new in my constituency of Cardiff West. Almost a decade ago, my predecessor raised very similar concerns following the death of another constituent, in a case involving dangerous driving in Adamstown, Cardiff. The constituent was killed after two drivers deliberately pursued her and drove her off the road. Both were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to just six and a half and seven and a half years in prison respectively. The outcome then left the victim’s family members feeling that justice had not fully reflected the gravity of what had happened. How can I find myself, almost 10 years later, representing the same constituency, arguing the same point in the same Chamber? Why and how can history continue to repeat itself in this way?

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for shedding light on those cases. It cannot be easy for the families to hear again what happened. The reason we are back here, I expect, is because the sentences are not a deterrent, and because the term “death by dangerous driving” completely underplays what happens, particularly in the cases my hon. Friend explained. This is manslaughter. Does he agree that we should think not just about sentencing, but about how we present such cases to the courts?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I entirely agree. I will shortly come on to some actions that I am calling on the Government to take forward, some of which I think my hon. Friend will be pleased and will agree with.

In 2024, a collision in Carmarthenshire claimed the lives of two young people. In sentencing the driver at Swansea Crown court on 2 April this year, Judge Huw Rees observed that, although the driver had not exceeded the speed limit, his driving was

“simply not appropriate for the prevailing road conditions”.

Visibility was limited and conditions were extremely poor, yet the driver accelerated when greater caution was required. That driver received 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months on both counts of causing death by careless driving, with the sentences again running concurrently. He was disqualified from driving for 18 months and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. Two young lives were lost in that case, yet the driver did not receive an immediate custodial sentence.

That outcome and the others I have talked about in the cases of my constituents inevitably raise questions about whether the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences are adequately reflected in sentencing. Road safety cannot be measured solely by whether someone exceeds the speed limit: drivers must exercise judgment, adapt to conditions and put the safety of others first. When two lives are lost, the public must have confidence that the sentences reflect the seriousness of that failure.

Of course, sentencing is not solely about punishment; it must also be a deterrent. If we want drivers to think twice before speeding, showing off, using their phones at the wheel, taking risks in poor weather or disregarding other road users, the consequences must be clear and meaningful. When families repeatedly see outcomes that they perceive as inadequate, public confidence suffers. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We must also consider what happens after an offender has been sentenced. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Where a driver has demonstrated a serious failure to meet their responsibilities, we must ensure that their return to the road is subject to appropriate safeguards.

I urge the Government to take action in four areas. First, driving disqualifications must be reviewed. Where a driver has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to drive safely, there should be a robust process for assessing their fitness to return to the road. The Government should consider Sian’s proposal for automatic licence revocation following serious traffic incidents, notably before an appearance at or a conviction by a court. Such steps should be considered alongside mandatory reassessment before driving privileges are ever restored.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Road safety is a key issue in my constituency, and he is absolutely right to say that the sentences should reflect these hideous crimes. Does he also agree that we must look at prevention? As part of that, will he encourage the Government to look at the introduction of graduated driving licences, which are a way of preventing these horrendous incidents from taking place? There is much international evidence that they save lives.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes the point excellently; I totally endorse what she said and I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that.

I am aware that the suspension of driving licences was consulted on as part of the Department for Transport’s motoring offences consultation. That covered not just death by dangerous or careless driving but drink and drug-related offences. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that the Department for Transport carefully considers this question, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), as it analyses those consultation responses.

Secondly, sentencing guidelines must be reviewed. The Government should examine guidelines for careless and dangerous driving resulting in death, ensuring that excessive speed, deliberate risk-taking, previous offending and disregard for safety receive appropriate weight.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I have previously spoken quite vociferously on the issue. Tougher sentences have to happen, with the revocation of licences for a very long period. Two lives were lost in my constituency: two months ago, we lost a 60-year-old man, and on the same stretch last year, we lost a 56-year-old. We have to look at the causes. If that includes people taking balloons, we have to restrict them from taking and being high on the gases in the balloons, but we also have to implement safety measures that would prevent cars doing 89 mph in a 20-mph zone.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those stories, I extend my greatest sympathies to the affected constituents who he so admirably represents, and I entirely agree with what he said.

Consistency is important, but it must not come at the expense of properly reflecting the circumstances of each crime. Relatedly, the Minister will know that the unduly lenient sentence scheme allows anyone to ask for certain Crown court sentences to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office if they think they are too lenient. The review is ultimately conducted by the Law Officers—the Attorney General or the Solicitor General—and if they consider that a sentence appears unduly lenient, they can ask the Court of Appeal to review it. However, only sentences passed in the Crown court in respect of offences triable only on indictment—that is, in the Crown Court—or those offences added to the scheme by subsequent order may be referred to the Court of Appeal. The offence of causing death by careless driving is not triable only on indictment and although there is a long list of offences that have been subsequently added to the ULS scheme by various orders, the offence of causing death by careless driving has not.

Following the sentence of Keely’s killer, Sian was mistakenly told by the prosecuting barrister and the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer dealing with the case that the sentence imposed might have been too lenient and that they would consider whether the matter should be referred under the ULS scheme. Regrettably, and for the reasons I have mentioned, that was a mistake. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on that disconnect and say whether he will seek to inquire whether the offence of causing death by careless driving should be added to the ULS scheme.

Thirdly, the Government should consider whether legislative changes are needed to strengthen custodial sentences.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I want to raise the really sad case of Sophie Brimble, which was brought to me by her sister. Sophie was killed as a passenger in a car with her boyfriend, who was driving at three times the speed limit. The driver was found unfit to plead and therefore walked out of court without having to face justice. The unfit to plead law dates back to 1836. Does my hon. Friend agree that reforming it is long overdue?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing yet another tragic story. I again extend my sincere condolences to her constituents, and I entirely agree with her. I hope the Minister can address the issue she raised.

Of course a prison sentence can never bring back a loved one, but it must provide meaningful accountability and act as a genuine deterrent, as we have been saying. We must examine whether the sentences available and imposed in these most serious of cases adequately reflect the harm caused, including considering whether suspended sentences are appropriate in such cases.

Fourthly, we must address repeat offending and consider prevention. In my opinion, the Government should review whether the current penalties sufficiently address patterns of irresponsible driving before they lead to further tragedy. Stronger sentences alone will not solve every road safety problem. Enforcement, education and safer infrastructure must remain central.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Government figures show that rural roads account for 60% of road deaths but only 45% of traffic, and speed-related factors were recorded in over half of all fatal collisions in the last year. In my constituency of Gravesham, we lost two people in Sole Street who were cyclists on the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural villages—where roads are narrower, without pavements, and shared by walkers, cyclists and horse riders—need particular attention and intervention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I again extend my condolences to the people in her constituency who are affected. Part of my constituency is rural; indeed, these issues affect many constituencies across our four home nations. I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully to that intervention.

The debate is not about revenge; it is about justice, accountability and prevention. We cannot change what happened to the victims of these offences, but we can decide what lessons we learn from their deaths.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My constituent Darran is the father of Aidan Venison, who was only 19 when he was killed by a driver under the influence of drink and drugs who was not a first-time offender—he had already been banned from driving before, and on that occasion he was also uninsured. Aidan’s parents do not understand the leniency that might have been afforded to such a driver, or why they are still allowed to be on the roads. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes sentences that are perceived as lenient add to the heartbreak of parents?

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and extend my condolences to the constituent she is so admirably representing. I agree that it is about accountability, justice and the message that it sends to the victims and their families who have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am so glad the hon. Gentleman has called this debate. I want to include the feeling of injustice that there is for those who suffer the loss of a family member. The person who killed the wife of one of my constituents with a car chose to give a “no comment” interview. There were only two vehicles involved: a bike ridden by my constituent’s wife, and a car. The perpetrator did not deny that she had done it, but she gave a “no comment” interview throughout the proceedings, which just added to the grief and injustice that that family feels.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that tragic story and I again extend my condolences to those affected. I entirely agree. We have to think of this issue holistically, because the impact is forever for the families and friends of the victims.

If two different families and two different MPs from the same constituency have been raising the same concerns for almost a decade, Parliament has a responsibility to listen. We must ask whether our laws provide sufficient punishment, deterrence and protection for the public. If they do not, we must have the courage to change them.

Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Caerau to visit the park. For the community there, it is a daily reminder of Keely and the life lost. I know that the community support for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words will bring Keely back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family, as well as everyone who supported her campaign, for their courage. They have channelled their grief in an attempt to get the productive outcome that we are talking about here today.

Keely should have been able to cross that road safely and return home. She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. She was a daughter, a sister and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity.

Ultimately, this issue is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and acts as a meaningful deterrent to prevent further tragedies. We must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks. I urge the Government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the further contributions of colleagues.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should not speak about any live or ongoing court cases or inquests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Thank you, Ms Lewell, for your excellent chairing of this debate.

I thank everybody who has contributed. It has been incredibly humbling to hear the stories of loss and tragedy, and, as the Minister said, of such cases’ prevalence. I am particularly touched to have Sian and her family and Sue and Del Waterman in the Gallery, and to hear inspiring examples of individuals channelling grief and tragedy into learning lessons to ensure that people do not have to go through such tragedies again. That includes the example of Lillie’s law, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).

We have been talking about this issue for too long and too often in this place, so I am grateful for what the Minister said about the action that I and others have called for. I shall appreciate anything he can do to impress the urgency of the situation on the new Roads Minister. Will he encourage him to meet me and no doubt Sian again, and to listen to the calls of action from me and others who have spoken, as well as the Watermans and the proposers of Lillie’s law? Anything he can do to drive change across Government will be central to ensuring that this pernicious issue is dealt with. It has gone on for too long.

In his discussions within the constitutional pool, will the Minister speak to the chief prosecutor of Wales about some of the challenges that have been found? Will he ask why, in the case of my constituent, sentencing was pegged and they had to go with the lesser offence? He could learn some invaluable lessons for part of the wider framework that he is putting together.

I will finish by thanking everyone for contributing. First and foremost, I send my condolences to all the constituents whose cases we have referred to. I particularly thank Sian and her family for inspiring me and allowing me to work with them to drive change.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving.