Prime Minister Robert Abela has questioned whether the judiciary is applying sentences that reflect the gravity of the outcomes of traffic accidents.
Victims who suffer a permanent disability have not been getting sufficient justice in court when perpetrators get off with light sentences. Yet, I find it unfair to lay the blame solely on the judiciary simply because the related legislation has wide parameters for interpretation that include imposing effective prison sentences. Is there any validity in calling on the courts to consider upping the punishment?
As things stand under our law, it cannot be denied that, even considering the maximum punishments possible under both the criminal code and the traffic regulation ordinance, those punishments remain soft and in no way reflect the increasing gravity of traffic mayhem on our roads.
Our legislators must seriously consider amending both the criminal code and the ordinance to lay down stricter and harsher punishments for traffic offences, leaving little discretion, or none at all, for our courts. Just consider what our Italian neighbours did in March of 2016 when senator Domenico Scilipoti piloted amendments to both the equivalent of our criminal code and the traffic regulation ordinance that culminated in the new offence of omicidio stradale.
Indeed, the Italian parliament felt the need to tone down the discretion that the law left to the judiciary in inflicting punishment on traffic law offenders, precisely because it had been meting out too many lenient sentences.
Today, therefore, the Italian judiciary is bound by law, in the event that grievous bodily harm or involuntary homicide is caused in a traffic accident as a result of the gross negligence of the convicted driver, to apply the punishment of not less than eight years effective imprisonment and not more than 18 years.
In the event that more than one person suffers grievous bodily harm or death as a result of the same accident, the punishment goes up to a maximum of 21 years. In all cases, imprisonment cannot be suspended. Such punishment is accompanied by hefty fines and disqualification from holding a driving licence.
In October 2017, the ministry of justice in the UK embarked on making legislative amendments to tighten the court’s wide discretion in meting out punishment for driving offences relating to causing death and serious injury.
The amendments did not cover other driving or regulatory offences such as speeding or drink-drive limits, the basic offences of careless or dangerous driving, or driving while using a mobile phone. Yet, some of these behaviours, as a result of the amendments, are now relevant where they were a factor in the driving that led to a death or serious injury.
The courts are there to apply the law and, once our legislative body takes the cue and proceeds to tighten the wide discretion that our laws currently afford them, they will follow suit and conform.
We had already encountered a similar situation when punishments for gender-based violence were lenient in cases of crimes of passion involving wilful homicide. Consequently, amendments were made to the criminal code so that this will no longer be an acceptable excuse when the judge comes to mete out punishment in instances of femicide.
The Italian judiciary is bound by law to apply a punishment of not less than eight years in jail for grievous bodily harm or involuntary homicide caused in a traffic accident- Mark Said
In contrast, when our legislators felt the need to put a stop to the mandatory stiff punishment for simple drug possession for personal use, the drug legislation was amended accordingly and the courts complied.
The almost daily occurrences of accidents on our roads, some of which are fatal, should lead our lawmakers to update the law in such a manner as to make it incumbent on magistrates and judges to adjudicate stiffer punishments for traffic offenders.
It is thus that one can hope that our courts will use their good offices and serve more stringent punishments to traffic offenders, particularly those who drive under the influence of alcohol and abuse the speed limit, resulting in grievous injuries and, unfortunately, all too often, even deaths.
Minor traffic offences might be excusable but they should not be allowed to slip through the cracks. However, drunk driving and speeding should be seen as habits and such behaviours are risky to road users.
We must ensure that road safety issues are addressed according to 21st century requirements. All road users must be safely accommodated on the roads and that is one of the reasons why the legislative amendments in question are necessary and warranted.
Our country’s development will be woefully lacking if our road safety practices are not intensified. Our limited health resources are continuously negatively impacted as the country spends millions of euros each year to care for victims of traffic crashes. Furthermore, the insurance industry suffers heavy losses annually as a result of the increasing number of serious traffic accidents.
There are also immeasurable losses to the workforce, production, income and emotional well-being of families, as well as damage to property owing to trauma triggered by crashes.
Every life lost on our nation’s roads presents a socio-economic loss to our communities. Every injury on our roads is a loss to our workforce, economy and communities. How do we stop this haemorrhaging of our country and our economy? Each of us must play a bold, decisive and responsible role in road safety. But our legislators and the courts must lead the way.
Any law-drafting process must start immediately and, thereafter, everyone should strive to get the ensuing draft legislation for parliamentary debate as soon as possible.
Mark Said is a lawyer.