In Court
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059304000116 |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
38
IN COURT
Weighing
Consequences
of
Bad
Driving
A
motorist
recklessly
drove
a
Porsche
car
at
speed
on
a
double
carriageway
with
a
30mph
limit,
overtaking
on
the
nearside,
after
excess
alcohol
consump-
tion
(146
mgs
per
100
mls
of
blood).
He
lost
control,
crossed
the
central
reservation
and
hit
a
motor
cyclist,
causing
grave
injuries
including
severance
of
the
victim’s
foot
and
part
of
his
leg.
Appealing
against
15
months
imprisonment,
he
argued
that
the
sentencer
had
paid
undue
attention
to
the
consequences
of
the
accident
and
too
little
to
the
quality
of
the
driving.
The
Court
of
Appeal
held
that
when
sentencing
for
reckless
driving
(now
dangerous
driving)
where
per-
sonal
injury
is
caused,
the
sentencer
should
heed
all
the
facts,
including
the
gravity
of
consequences
to
members
of
the
public.
The
reckless
as
opposed
to
the
careless
offender
takes
his
chance
as
to
the
consequences
of
his
driving.
This
case,
whilst
bad,
was
not
at
the
top
of
the
scale
(for
which
the
max-
imum
sentence
is
two
years)
and,
tak-
ing
account
of
the
positive
evidence
of
remorse,
sentence
should
be
reduced
to
12
months.
R
v
STEEL
Crime
LR
December
1992.
Mothercare
Unmarried
and
separated
parents
of
an
unborn
child
agreed
that
the
father
should
care
for
the
baby.
After
the
birth
the
mother
changed
her
mind
and
sought
a
residence
order.
On
appeal
against
the
judge’s
decision
that
the
child,
now
aged 3
weeks,
should
re-
main
with
the
father
pendiiig
a
welfare
report,
the
Court
of
Appeal
reversed
the
decision,
holding
that
’no
court
could
be
ignorant
of
what
would
be
the
position
if
other
things
were
equal’.
A
baby
under 4
weeks
would
normally
be
with
the
mother.
The
Master
of
the
Rolls
went
so
far
as
to
propose
a
rebut-
table
presumption
that
the
best
in-
terests
of
a
baby
are
served
by
being
with
the
mother,
though
did
not
clarify
how
long
babyhood
lasts.
RE
E
Family
Law
November
1992.
Key
Issue
of
Contact
A
court
was
wrong
to
order
reinstate-
ment
of
contact
through
three
periods
of
supervised
access
without
consider-
ing
the
key
issue
of
whether
there
was
any
reasonable
prospect
of
any
benefit
accruing
to
the
child
in
the
foreseeable
future
and
in
face
of
a
welfare
officer’s
advice
that
such
links
would
be
a
source
of
potential
damage
to
the
child.
There
could
only
be
distress
and
disruption
if
the
parents,
in
this
case
unmarried
parents
who
had
never
liv-
ed
together,
who
held
completely
in-
compatible
views,
were
brought
into
enforced
contact
together.
The
theoretical
advantages
of
renewed
links
were
outweighed
by
the
serious
risk
of
harm.
RE
F
F~~a
Law
November
1992.
Residence
Order
Right
Notwithstanding
the
’no
order’
presumption
of
the
Cbildren
Act
1989
and
even
if
there
is
no
dispute
between
the
parties,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
make
a
s8
order,
as
illustrated
by
B v
B
(Family
Law,
November
1992).
The
applicant
had
looked
after
her
11
year
old
grand-daughter
throughout
her
life,
To continue reading
Request your trial