FOR ALL THE TALK, DON’T BET ON TOUGHER SENTENCES

THE art of modern politics is to get the headline you want. What actually happens after that is almost irrelevant.

Take the headlines in yesterday’s papers: ‘Killer-drivers to face life in prison’ and ‘Killer-drivers to be jailed for life after family’s protests’.

They stem from a statement by justice minister Dominic Raab, who said: ‘We intend to introduce life sentences for those who wreck lives by driving dangerously, while drunk, or high on drugs.’ This is already a watering down of the pledge by his colleague Sam Gyimah, who, following the Mail’s campaign for tougher sentences for those who cause deaths as a result of illegally texting while driving, said these offenders, too, would ‘face a life sentence’.

Both pledges are, in practice, meaningless.

The existing maximum sentence for causing death while driving is 14 years. So far as I can discover, no judge has ever imposed it. For example, last year, lorry driver Keith Mees was sentenced for kill- ing two men by smashing into their car. He had spent the previous 14 minutes texting his girlfriend. He had earlier been banned for drink-driving. His immediate reaction when told at the crash-site that the occupants of the car were dead was: ‘For f***’s sake, I’ve only had my [HGV] licence for a few weeks.’

It’s hard to imagine a worse example of causing death by dangerous driving. And the sentence passed on Mees? Six years. But don’t blame the judge. The very first edict in the Compendium Of Sentencing guidelines, which judges must follow, directs: ‘In view of the dangerous overcrowding of prisons, where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary, it should be as short as possible, consistent with public protection.’

Raab may well bring in legislation mandating judges to pass a life sentence on drink or drug-addled killerdrivers. I guarantee that no judge will ever impose one. And the headline-grabbing politicians know it.