Drivers who kill a friend or loved one could be spared prosecution 'because they have already suffered enough' Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said not in public interest Oppressive and insensitive" for courts to hear cases against these people Safety groups say courts not lawyers should set the punishment for drivers Drivers who kill their close friends or family members were given a chance of escaping criminal charges under new rules laid down by the Crown Prosecution Service yesterday. Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said it can be "oppressive and insensitive" for the courts to hear cases against people who have already suffered enough. In guidance for prosecutors he said that in some cases "it would not be in the public interest to proceed because of the likely life-long consequences of losing a loved-one and being responsible for that loss." Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said it can be 'oppressive and insensitive' for the courts to hear cases against people who have already suffered enough The intervention means that in future a driver who causes an accident that kills a family member, or a boyfriend or a girlfriend, could be freed from the threat of a jail sentence. The decision would be taken by prosecutors behind closed doors rather than by a judge and jury in public. Road victims" pressure groups and legal experts protested that the courts and not state lawyers should set the punishment for drivers who kill, and warned that leniency exercised by bureaucrats is open to abuse by criminals who use their cars as weapons. The Brake road safety charity said "we are concerned this guidance gives an overriding bias against prosecution in the majority of nearest and dearest cases." The Starmer guidance covers a number of the most serious driving charges, including causing death by dangerous driving, which can bring a jail sentence of 14 years; causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, which has a maximum sentence of five years; causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which can bring a 14 year sentence; and causing death while driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, which carries a two-year maximum. The intervention means that in future a driver who causes an accident that kills a family member, or a boyfriend or a girlfriend, could be freed from the threat of a jail sentence Mr Starmer, who is shortly to step down from his post, said: "A driver who makes a genuine mistake that ends the life of a close friend or family member will bear a particularly heavy responsibility. Following the death of a close friend or family member, it will be presumed that a prosecution is in the public interest, but the emotional trauma suffered by the driver and the consequences of bringing a prosecution for those closest to the victim and driver will be taken into account. These factors will be weighed against the driver's culpability and a driver who continues to pose a danger to others is likely to be prosecuted. The Crown Prosecution Service added, following a consultation in which objectors said the relationship between a criminal driver and the victims should only be considered by a judge when handing down sentence, that the public interest could be against prosecution in the first place. "A prosecution could be oppressive and insensitive," the CPS said. The new rules say there could be cause to stop a prosecution if the driver's fault is relatively minor, for example if they lost concentration while tuning the radio, or made a mistake like failing to look when coming out of a junction, or wrongly believed they were insured to drive. In such cases, where a loved one dies, "it is unlikely that a prosecution will be in the public interest." However, if a driver has previous motoring convictions or a medical condition, it may be they pose a continued danger and a prosecution should go ahead, the CPS said. It said such cases, in which the driver has suffered "significant personal loss from the bereavement" should now be known as "close friends and family" cases, rather than "nearest and dearest" cases as in the past. But Ellen Booth, of Brake, said: "We believe that decisions to prosecute should not be affected by whether the person killed was a friend or relative of the perpetrator, although it should remain a factor for consideration by the court when sentencing. The purpose of the criminal law is not just to reflect the damage done to the person killed and their family and friends, but to reflect the fact that there was a breach of criminal law, which has a damaging effect on society. Criminologist Dr David Green of the Civitas think tank said: "These matters should not be decided by prosecutors. You cannot be sure everything is known at that stage. The decision should be for a jury and a judge who have heard all the evidence. Road victims' pressure groups and legal experts protested that the courts and not state lawyers should set the punishment for drivers who kill Dr Green added: "It is also the case that such prosecution rules may be open to abuse by criminals. The Crown Prosecution Service may be looking in this case for ways to reduce their workload rather than ways to further the cause of justice. Lawyer and author on family life Jill Kirby said: "I find this guidance extraordinary. The job of the Crown Prosecution Service is to bring forward prosecutions. Mitigation is a matter for the courts in the last stage of a case. It is strange that while the CPS is strongly urging vigorous prosecution in cases of violence and sexual assault within the family, they take a different view on driving offences. That is a matter of grave concern. The CPS guidance also ruled that police, ambulance and fire brigade drivers need not be prosecuted over serious offences if they were responding properly to an emergency at the time of an accident, and if the driving was not reckless. Ordinary drivers caught in an emergency - for example a parent taking a sick child to hospital - should also be freed from the threat of criminal charges.