Attorney General refuses to challenge sentence of delivery driver who killed cyclist while high on cocaine

No. The charge of "Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, etc" (RTA s3A) takes account of the drugs part.

And the minimum for that level of intoxication is then 5 years (with a max of 10) if it's "momentary inattention with no aggravating factors."

we are talking about people who have been killed, families who have lost loved ones, it seems a bit disrespectful to argue the absolute details of charges like it matters that much, ultimately the end outcome in jail time is all people are concerned with, not what section of the road traffic act it came under.

It sort of does matter when you're discussing whether or not the sentence was too lenient. A court can only pass a sentence for the charged offence.

Exactly. What does that say about the Attorney General's office? 

Surreyrider wrote:

Exactly. What does that say about the Attorney General's office? 

I think it says they don't like to get involved in judge's decisions unless there's a big public outcry.

It says that they can only challenge a sentence where the sentence for the charged offence was too lenient; you cannot choose to impose a sentence for a higher offence without that offence being brought before the court.  The judge has to start at the 'starting point' sentence before taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as being obliged to award a discount for the guilty plea.  You can't start at the max and work down, or at the min and work up.

However, the sentencing range for "Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, etc" is pretty much the same as for death by DD (although much easier to prove), so that's largely a moot point.  AFAIK, there is no higher offence of death by DD due to drink/drugs.

The max starting point (for 71ug+ and "Careless/ inconsiderate driving falling not far short of dangerousness") is 8yrs with a max sentence of 14yrs for this offence.  So the combination of factors pushed the sentence up from the applicable starting point to 10 years, before applying a 3yr discount for the plea. 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-d...

So, IMO and from the limited info we have available, the CPS chose the correct charge; the judge presumably started at 8 years and added aggravating factors, before applying the discount.  So without full access to the evidence (and examination of both aggravating and - if any - mitigating factors) we can't state that it's obviously lenient.

If anyone's "to blame" for the sentence here then it's the independent sentencing council.

Rendel Harris wrote:

As I understand it, careless driving (max sentence 7 years) entails driving that falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver, whereas dangerous driving (max sentence 14 years) falls "far below". How does driving around coked off your face not fall "far below" the standard of etc etc?

Simple; it was only a cyclist.  If he'd killed anyone else, that would be dangerous.

eburtthebike

'Simple; it was only a cyclist.  If he'd killed anyone else, that would be dangerous'.

Gosh, that's a cynical comment. But I agree  unfortunately. 

He was charged with causing death by CD whilst unfit - a different offence with the same 14yr max sentence, and much easier to prove than DD; there's also no death by DD whilst unfit offence.