Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I welcome Peter to the meeting. You are very welcome. Thank you very much for your attendance. Without further ado, I invite you to make an opening statement, if that is OK. Thank you.

Mr Peter Dolan (Enda Dolan Foundation): Thank you, Chairman and Committee members. I welcome the opportunity to make my submission to the Committee. I will focus on Part 7 of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill on road traffic offences; in particular, clause 41, which relates to periods of imprisonment.

I respectfully urge the Committee and the Minister of Justice to amend the law on causing death by dangerous driving so that the maximum sentence available to the courts in Northern Ireland is increased from the current 14 years to at least 20 years and, preferably, life imprisonment, bringing Northern Ireland into line with the sentencing framework in England and Wales. That is not simply a legislative issue: it concerns public trust in the justice system; consistency across the United Kingdom; recognition of the devastating impact on victims' families; and ensuring that the most serious cases attract sentences that properly reflect the gravity of the offending.

Our son Enda Dolan was an exceptionally talented and popular young man. He was academically gifted, an accomplished athlete and a talented guitarist. Basically, he was an all-rounder. Enda, aged 18 and a half, had been studying architecture at Queen's University in Belfast for just over three weeks when he was killed by a vehicle while walking on the pavement on the Malone Road on 15 October 2014. The vehicle mounted the pavement, hit our son and carried him on the roof of the van for half a mile. He was then thrown off and left like a bag of rubbish on the side of the road. The driver of the van drove off and crashed into a lamp post some time later and had to be cut out of the vehicle. He was caught red-handed.

The driver was more than three and half times over the legal alcohol limit and was under the influence of drugs. He was initially sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment and three and a half years on licence. Following a Public Prosecution Service (PPS) appeal, the sentence was increased to four and a half years' imprisonment and four and a half years on licence. For our family and many other families in similar circumstances, that did not feel proportionate to the loss suffered nor did it send a sufficiently strong deterrent message. That, in our opinion, was not justice. Enda lost his life, and our family received a life sentence of grief. The offender received a custodial sentence measured in years.

Over the past 10 years, we have engaged extensively with Department of Justice officials, former Justice Minister Claire Sugden, the current Minister of Justice, Naomi Long, former Prime Minister Theresa May, various MLAs, key stakeholders and other bereaved families. Our experience has reinforced the urgent need for reform. The law in England and Wales has already been strengthened to provide significantly higher maximum penalties for the most serious driving offences causing death. Victims' families in Northern Ireland deserve the same protection, recognition and justice as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Legislative parity is a matter of fairness and consistency.

In England and Wales, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs from 14 years to life. Sentencing guidelines now recognise that the most serious cases may involve deliberate disregard for public safety, prolonged dangerous driving, racing, gross intoxication or other exceptionally serious aggravating factors. In contrast, Northern Ireland retains a maximum sentence of 14 years, creating an inconsistency across the UK. There is no principled justification for maintaining a lower maximum penalty when the consequence is the loss of human life. The reforms in England and Wales acknowledge that some driving offences are so grave and reckless that courts should have the power to impose life sentences where justified. Northern Ireland should adopt the same approach.

A motor vehicle in the hands of a grossly intoxicated, drug-impaired or recklessly dangerous driver becomes a deadly weapon. Where an individual knowingly drives while heavily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs and causes death, the outcome is no less catastrophic than the use of any conventional weapon. The law should recognise that reality.

Not all dangerous driving cases are the same. There is a clear distinction between momentary error and conduct involving extreme intoxication, drug impairment, persistent disregard for road safety, excessive speed, racing or deliberate risk-taking and previous relevant convictions. In cases involving the highest levels of culpability, courts should have access to the most severe sentencing powers. The current maximum sentence of 14 years, which may be reduced further by mitigating factors, does not adequately reflect circumstances where an offender knowingly drives while grossly impaired and causes death. That needs to change.

Many bereaved families struggle to understand how conduct that results in the loss of innocent life can attract sentences that are perceived as substantially lower than those imposed for other serious offences. It is not about vengeance; it is about proportionality. The public expect the law to recognise the seriousness of causing death through grossly dangerous and impaired driving. Providing courts with the power to impose sentences of up to 20 years or, indeed, life imprisonment in the most exceptional cases would strengthen confidence that the justice system can respond appropriately.

While no sentence can restore a lost life, the criminal law serves important purposes: punishment, deterrence, public protection and denunciation of unlawful conduct. A stronger sentencing framework would send a clear message that choosing to drive while heavily intoxicated or under the influence of drugs is among the most serious criminal decisions that a person can make.

I urge the Committee to recommend an amendment to clause 41 of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years to life. Such reform would bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales, better recognise the value of victims' lives, strengthen public trust in the justice system, allow courts to deal appropriately with the most serious offending and ensure that sentencing powers reflect modern expectations of justice.

The death of our son Enda exposed the inadequacy of the current sentencing framework for the most serious dangerous driving offences. No legislative change can undo what happened or lessen the lifelong impact on our family. However, the law can ensure that future cases are met with sentencing powers that properly reflect the gravity of the harm caused and the culpability of those responsible. I therefore respectfully ask the Justice Committee to support amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill so that Northern Ireland adopts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the most serious cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Such reform would represent a meaningful step towards justice, consistency and protection for future generations.

I thank the Justice Committee for considering this submission, and I record my appreciation to the Minister and officials at the Department of Justice, who have worked with us over many years.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Peter, for your presentation and your concise delivery.

Those who are attending online may see only a black screen. Broadcasting is aware of the issue and is working on it. Even though you cannot see us, I hope that you can hear us at least. We will resolve that for you as quickly as we can. Thank you for your patience.

The Committee Clerk: It may require a system reboot. If members attending online are OK to continue with audio, I suggest that we do that after the session, rather than disrupt the session.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Again, thank you, Peter, for your presentation. I thank you and Niamh for coming to meet us, because it will be a very important session. I know that this is not easy for you. I know the depth of your despair and what you are campaigning for. Before I go to members, I just want to say that you are very much in our thoughts and prayers at this time, as we go through the Bill and deliberate on it, because I know that that process, in itself, will not be easy.

Mr Dolan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will go to Emma.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Peter, for coming here today. You have given powerful testimony that reflects the seriousness of the issue. We are dealing with a Bill, but people will be affected by our decisions. That is brought into stark reality when we hear you talking about Enda, how young he was and the lost opportunity of the life that you should have been watching unfold at this stage. As the Chair said, thank you very much for coming and sharing your story. I appreciate that.

You have set out a compelling argument for why there needs to be legislative change and why you feel that the sentence needs to be increased. Nobody could realistically argue with the rationale that you have presented. I suppose that our priority is to ensure that any change that we support, as a Committee, or anything that the Minister does will prevent further deaths and give people with the potential to be reckless or to decide to drive under the influence of drink or drugs cause to think again.

With regard to how the perpetrator of your son's death has been treated and handled by the justice system, how has your experience made you, as an affected party, feel about the seriousness or lack of seriousness of that, given the crime that was committed?

Mr Dolan: First of all, after a terrible tragedy, you try to get your thoughts together. You then go through the various court proceedings. That is an experience that I would not want anybody to go through: it is horrific. We have had discussions with various stakeholders and Department of Justice officials about our experience.

The devastation is when the sentence is delivered: you are standing outside court, it is done and dusted, and you realise that the guy who has been convicted and sentenced for the death of your child gets away with quite a light sentence. It is hard to describe your thoughts at that stage. It is devastating. You feel that justice has not been served. You feel annoyed. You are still grieving, and you are going through the grieving process again. You just wonder why that is and what is wrong with the system.

That is why I am here and why, over the past 10 years, I have been campaigning to get the law changed. The Bill will not change things for or affect me — it is too late for that — but hopefully it will for someone somewhere along the line. Those individuals and families will not realise that until they are standing outside court. Hopefully, they will feel that justice has delivered for them and they will have got something that they are happy with. Nothing will ever take away from the gravity of what has happened, but, if you feel that you have got justice, it softens the blow a wee bit.

Ms Sheerin: Yes. None of us can even attempt to put ourselves in your position or imagine what it feels like, but I think that what you are saying is that you would like the legacy to be the prevention of similar deaths.

I am concerned that that sort of reckless behaviour on our roads has been almost normalised. We see such an increase in drug use in particular, as well as alcohol use. Perhaps people do not realise the seriousness of the consequences of a poor decision. An education piece alongside the legislation would be key in trying to reflect that seriousness. I understand that your proposals would send a clear message to people that that decision is not to be taken lightly. I appreciate your coming to Committee. Thanks very much.

Mr Kingston: Peter, I thank you and Niamh for coming today. I am very sorry for your loss of Enda. I remember the news when it happened and the shock at that time. You have explained about your talented young son. I express sorrow for the grief that you will always feel for the life that was lost.

You are campaigning now for other families, and you feel that the sentence of the man who was convicted did not reflect the seriousness of the crime. From what you said, I understand that he was three times over the alcohol limit and had drugs in his system.

Mr Dolan: That is right.

Mr Kingston: He fled the scene before crashing again, and he caused the death of your son. It is probably one of the most severe examples of such cases. Even on appeal, the sentence was nine years, only half of which was to be served. At that time, was the maximum sentence 14 years?

Mr Dolan: That is correct.

Mr Kingston: Despite the circumstances, on appeal, the sentence was only nine years. Were you given any explanation of why he was not given the maximum sentence?

Mr Dolan: It is hard to take. We have been given explanations, but I do not understand them. I am just a layperson. Many families who have gone through similar experiences to ours do not understand why, if the maximum sentence as things stand is 14 years, it is not used. The courts need to look at that. That is not for today's discussion. Discounts are given for pleading guilty at an early stage, and there are all sorts of mitigating factors. However, that should not be the case. That all should be looked at, but that is for another day.

The 20 years proposed in the Bill is good and a lot better than the current 14 years. However, we need a maximum deterrent, and a maximum sentence of life will hopefully be that deterrent. Families will then feel that they have had some form of justice. It will be up to the courts and judges to decide how to deliver that.

Mr Kingston: Have you researched what sentences are typically given in Northern Ireland for causing death by reckless driving or drink-driving?

Mr Dolan: My understanding is that, in Northern Ireland, no one has been sentenced to 14 years.

Mr Kingston: Is nine —?

Mr Dolan: I have heard of nobody whose sentence has exceeded nine years.

Mr Kingston: Right.

Mr Dolan: There are a lot of questions.

Mr Kingston: You are right to say that vehicles driven by people in an unfit state are deadly weapons and can cause the death of innocent people, and there should be a deterrent to that. It is a question of whether increasing the maximum sentence will increase all sentences or only increase the maximum.

Mr Dolan: It will not necessarily increase all sentences. It will help the situation. However, in the worst-case scenario, similar to our experience, if a life sentence was there for the courts to use, you would like to feel that the person would get more than nine years and that you would leave the courtroom slightly happier.

Mr Kingston: Have you had time to look into the situation in England and Wales? You pointed out that, since 2022, the maximum sentence has been increased to a life sentence. Have you had time to study those sentences?

Mr Dolan: I have not, but I know that it has been studied there. As I said, we met Theresa May, who introduced a Bill in England and Wales. The maximum sentence there was 14 years, and that was changed to life. That was a big step up and was greatly welcomed by people like me and by families who have been campaigning over the years for a change.

Mr Kingston: Have other people been supporting you in your campaign?

Mr Dolan: Absolutely. We have had a lot of positive feedback. People sometimes do not have the voice, the energy and the enthusiasm. I am not saying that I do, but I am here, I suppose, and I am prepared to take it as far as it goes. I think that it is important, and I feel strongly about it.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for attending today.

Mr McGlone: Peter and Niamh, thank you very much for coming today. I have met you before, but, publicly, I extend my sincerest sympathies to you both on coming through everything. I also appreciate that you have been able to highlight the issue and bring it before us today.

Peter, you have articulated a good case for a maximum sentence of life. You mentioned exceptionally serious aggravating factors, and you mentioned exceptional cases. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this. Can you expand a bit on that for us?

Mr Dolan: I am talking about where an individual is sentenced who was well over the limit on intoxication or high on drink or drugs in a case that might have involved multiple deaths. Those are horrific situations with horrific consequences. At that stage, a life sentence needs to kick in.

Mr McGlone: And a history of similar driving offences.

Mr Dolan: Yes.

Mr McGlone: That is the sort of territory that you are going into. I want to get a picture of this. The outcome of a case is one thing, but how it is dealt with by the police, the PPS and the courts is another. It will have been an awful situation for you to have come through. Did you find that, at whatever tier, it was dealt with empathetically, sensitively and professionally?

Mr Dolan: That is a difficult question, Patsy. We have had discussions with the Victims' Commissioner, with the Minister and with many officials in the Department on our experience. We feel that that we did not have a good experience. That was relayed to those individuals, and, as far as I know, there have been situations that have changed slightly or small points that have made the process a wee bit easier for families.

Mr McGlone: I will maybe differentiate between your discussions with the Minister and officials and the process that led to the conviction: the criminal investigation, the referral to the PPS and the court case itself. I want to keep those two things separate because I want to hear from you about your experience of the process.

Mr Dolan: I believe that, at that stage, you are basically being led. You have suffered a terrible tragedy, and you are trying to get to grips with what happened. When you go down the legal route and are going to court, that in itself is a traumatic experience, just after having come through a traumatic experience. It might be a year and a half or two years down the line, after a massive delay. It is difficult for a layperson going through that to understand what is going on unless you have a background in law, which I do not. I have used the word "traumatic" a number of times. There is no easier way to describe it. It is traumatic and horrific. It is a nightmare to sit through. You do not understand a lot of things being discussed because it is way over your head.

It is hard to come to terms with what happens. When the sentence is read out, you almost need an interpreter to explain to you what has just happened, because it is not easy. The courts and the legal process need to be looked at and brought down to earth so that the likes of us and other laypersons can get to grips with what is going on.

Mr McGlone: I am trying to go through the stages of the police investigation. The police make a case to the PPS, and, of course, the case then ends up in court. We are getting the message that the way in which the case and the judgement are articulated and explained in court is a significant issue. How did you find the police investigation and the way in which they liaised with you? I am sure that the PPS communicated with you: how did you find that?

Mr Dolan: The communication from the PPS was quite good. We had a number of issues with the police's communication, but we got them resolved. As a result of our situation, they have changed the format. It is positive that they received our feedback and acted on it.

On the other side of it, the decision is read out, and it is hard to understand what has just happened and where you go from there. It is hard to get to grips with what has happened, including the sentence and how lenient it is. That is difficult, because you have just lost a family member — a loved one — and that is it. You are at the end of the road. There is nothing else after that, and you have just been told that someone is getting what is, in your opinion, a minimal or minor sentence for what they did. That is not acceptable to families. That is what the problem is, and it is the feedback that we have got from various families. They say that the situation is not acceptable and needs to change. They ask why it happens.

As I said, someone who gets into a car high on drugs or highly intoxicated is in charge of a lethal weapon. The deterrent is not there at the moment, and it should be. In no circumstances should that person get into a car and drive it, because the consequences are horrific.

Mr McGlone: I will summarise what I have taken from what you have said. Sentencing is one issue, and you have amply articulated your case. The way in which the courts deal with and explain sentencing to people involved in cases is another issue. You also said that, initially, the police communication could have been improved but that that communication had since improved.

Mr Dolan: That is my understanding.

Mr McGlone: That is OK. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Peter, for your presentation. I express my sincere sympathy to you on your loss and my earnest thanks for your campaign. Unless it happens to their family, people cannot realise the gravity of it.

Twenty-five years ago on 31 March, we lost a cousin, although she was more like a niece to me. I had been the best man at her parents' wedding, and she lived 30 yds, as the crow flies, from where I live. I knew her for all her life. She was killed by a drunk driver who placed more importance on picking up a dropped chip than on another life on the road, and, because he was well known in the area, people tried to spirit him away from the scene. He was a drunk driver who frequented a nearby establishment that was reluctant to supply information to the police. My cousin was a 23-year-old girl with natural blonde ringlets, the type that Irish dancers pay money to get. She was an only child, and her parents never saw her get married or have a grandchild. It hurts. Even now, it hurts. Unless someone has gone through it, they cannot understand the pain of something like that.

Without saying much more, I 100% support your campaign for a life sentence for drunk driving, and I wish you all the best. I again extend my sympathies to you.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Peter and Niamh, for coming to the Committee today, and thank you, Maurice, for sharing your experience.

Peter, I do not know whether I told you this when we met before, but I was at Queen's at the same time as Enda, and I remember the news coming through the next day and how shocked and absolutely devastated all the students were. That, however, is nothing compared with what you and your family have had to deal over the past years as a result of your loss. I thank you so much for your amazing campaign and for getting it to the point at which the length of sentence will be increased through the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. You have been absolutely tireless in what you have done, and it is really important work. I thank you for sharing your story with us, which, I know, will not have been easy.

It is important that, for the first time, the purposes of sentencing have been set out in the Bill. They are punishment; protection of the public; deterrence; rehabilitation; and reparation. We cannot achieve those aims without increasing the sentences, especially for the type of crime that you described, so I am interested to know what your thoughts are. You spoke about how sentences need to be a deterrent in order to prevent the creation of other victims and to stop what happened to you happening to other families.

I am also keen to hear your opinion on the fact that the current sentence provided for in the Bill is 20 years. You advocate a life sentence, and, given what we have heard today, nobody could disagree with that.

Mr Dolan: Thank you, Connie. Having a major deterrent is vital. Bringing Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales is also important, because consistency is important. Somebody killed in Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland through drink-driving, as happened in our situation, is no different from somebody killed in places such as Birmingham or Bolton in England or, indeed, somebody killed in Wales. The question is this: why is our law not the same as theirs? That means that an individual in Northern Ireland cannot get life, yet someone in England and Wales can. Getting the law changed is important.

Getting justice for families is also important. They need to feel that they have had justice, and we have mentioned that before. If judges have the option of giving a life sentence, it is up to them whether they use it. If they use it, that is good. If they do not use it, that is up to them, but at least they have it at their disposal. That is what we lack, and we need it.

Ms Egan: Thank you. That is such a good point. It seems so unfair on families here that there is a different sentence available in other regions.

Again, I thank you both so much for coming in today and sharing your story and for your campaign.

Mr Dolan: Thank you.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for coming to the Committee today. A lot of my questions have already been answered. I thank you for so eloquently telling your story, which is devastating. As has been said, nobody can truly understand what you are going through unless they have lost a child or had some sort of loss. To lose a child in such a way only deepens the hurt.

I do not know whether it was the culture in the courts at the time, but, when you were in court over 10 years ago, there was re-traumatisation and a lack of understanding about the fact that your child had been killed by somebody who was under the influence and who chose — your son did not get a choice — to get into a car under the influence and cause that devastating accident. With the benefit of more than 10 years of campaigning and engaging on the legislative framework, which you have clearly done a lot of, do you believe that the sentencing framework that existed at the time of Enda's case limited the court's ability to reflect fully the gravity of the offence and the level of culpability?

Mr Dolan: Absolutely. We have talked about the fact that, in our case, the individual got a maximum of nine years, half of which was served in custody with the other half served on licence: that is not fair. You would think that it should be a lot more than that. The question at that stage was why a 14-year sentence was not given. That was the start of our crusade to change the law. I hope that the Bill — certainly if the Justice Committee sees fit to table an amendment — will create a major deterrent and bring sentencing here to parity with England and Wales. Somewhere down the line, perhaps grieving families leaving court will be a wee bit happier as a result of feeling that they have been dealt a good hand.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are nearly done, Peter. There is just me to go, if that is OK.

You are right in what you say about a maximum sentence. We have seen that maximum sentences can be set right across law. Judges will always use their discretion when sentencing somebody. A maximum sentence is just that. Judges will apply all sorts of mitigations and scenarios before coming to a considered position. If we raise the maximum sentence from 14 years to 20 years, as is suggested in the Bill, or to life , how much of an impact do you think that that will have on judgements?

Mr Dolan: Slowly but surely, the penny is dropping for the courts. They see the devastating impact that a poor sentence has. You just have to listen to the news or read the newspaper reports to learn that there has been another death on the roads. I am not saying that that will necessarily be death by dangerous driving, but there are road safety issues such as speed and all sorts of other situations to be taken into account. If, however, we can reduce the number of fatalities on the roads by one, we will have done a good job. We need to look at doing that. Judges and courts need to use what is at their disposal and put down a marker so that, in the future, people do not get into a car if they have alcohol in their system, do not drive if they are on drugs and do not speed, because, as I have said, the consequences are horrific.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are dealing with two offences, which are:

and:

From clause 41, it is clear that we are seeking to change the sentence from 14 years to 20 years. Have you considered any sort of definition of the consequences on the basis of the amount of alcohol consumed? We hear all the time about somebody being three times over the limit or just over the limit. Do you think that, depending on the amount of alcohol consumed, there should be any mitigating circumstances, or does that not matter at all?

Mr Dolan: It does not matter: that is the simple answer. I cannot expand on that. People should not do it. They should not have alcohol in their system if driving. Someone who is going to be out for the night should plan their way out and plan their way home. That is it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You are speaking to clause 41, but we also have clauses 42, 43 and 44. I do not know how much you have looked into those clauses or how much they form part of your campaign. If they are not and if you are not aware of them, Peter, that is fine.

Clause 42 will introduce a period of imprisonment for certain repeat offences. I have not yet got my head around that clause completely, because, at this stage, we are still in the process of scrutinising the Bill. It seems to me that there is to be a maximum sentence for certain repeat offences, whereby, if someone does it again, they will get a maximum sentence of life. What are your thoughts on that? Have you looked at clause 42?

Mr Dolan: I have not, Chair, to be honest, so I cannot comment.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The earlier offences are under article 9 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which states:

and article 14, which states:

The relevant period is 10 years between the first offence and the second or repeat offence, so it seems that a repeat offender — someone who has caused death or grievous bodily injury a second time — will get a life sentence. I know, Peter, that you have not had a chance to look at clause 42, so I am merely making you aware that that is what it seems to suggest.

Patsy, you are looking to come in.

Mr McGlone: I am just seeking clarification, Chair, as I am not totally sure how the clause may work. For example, if a person were sentenced to life for a first offence, but, with good behaviour, were let out on licence after, say, 15 years, if that person were to appear before the courts again, they would presumably have to serve the remainder of their original sentence as well as any maximum penalty that they received for the second offence. I am trying to distil the legal position. I do not know what it is, so perhaps we can get clarity on how that will work in legislation if the offence committed the first time had resulted in a maximum sentence. What might that mean for the sentence for the repeat offence?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Clause 42 suggests that articles 9 and 14 of the 1995 Order:

Peter, if the Committee or someone else seeks to amend clause 41, that will have a consequence for clause 42, because —

Mr Dolan: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): — if we are going to put people in prison for 20 years or life instead of seven, nine or 14 years, we will need to look at the relevant period for repeat offences in clause 42. Moreover, if we table an amendment to clause 41 to change it from 20 years to life, that will also affect clause 42, because it suggests that the reference to 20 years' maximum imprisonment are references to imprisonment for life. I may not have got that right, but we may have to pair the two clauses.

Mr Dolan: Another thing to say, Chair, is that, if someone has already been convicted and has served a certain sentence — for example, 15 years — they should not be allowed to drive again. Their licence should be taken away from them altogether.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let me bring you on to clauses 43 and 44, also in Part 7. Clause 43 is on the disqualification period for certain offences. Clause 43(1) states:

I do not have in front of me what those offences are, but the following change is suggested to article 35(1):

I could be wrong, because I am premature in my thinking, but, as I read it, that means that, under the article 9 and article 14 offences in clause 41, disqualification periods, instead of being 12 months, refer to four years.

We then come to clause 44, which deals with the disqualification period for certain repeat offences. That is where someone does the same thing again. I remind you, Peter, that that also applies to the article 9 and article 14 offences of causing death or grievous bodily injury. The article 15(1) offence, which is:

and a further three offences in the 1995 Order have been included. The Bill states that, for a repeat offender, the disqualification period could be six years. Again, I may not be reading those things correctly, but I wanted to raise them with you, because everything seems to be grouped.

Mr Dolan: Yes, Chair. I just want to go through my experience. In our case, as we have said, the guy spent four and a half years in custody. He was banned from driving for five years, which commenced on the day that the sentence was handed down. After a further four and a half years, he was free. Six months later, he was officially able to drive. To my knowledge, that has changed. We were not happy about it, and we were able to get it changed for other people. Disqualification periods need to be looked at. Everything needs to be addressed, and the disqualification period and the deterrent need to be pulled together, because what is happening at the minute is not working. People who are caught need to get a major slap on the wrist.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Again, I am asking you to think out loud, Peter. Nothing is being decided here. We are merely looking at the provisions for the first time, so our thinking may be premature. Are you suggesting that, for someone who has been disqualified for a longer period but is serving time in prison, the disqualification should not start until they have the means to drive?

Mr Dolan: That is correct. I think that that is the case currently, but, at the time of our case, 10 years ago, it was not.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We will get that checked out to see where the law stands. I bow to your wisdom and judgement, however, because of the issue about which we are talking.

I know that you are focused on clause 41, but you will understand why, in asking you questions, I am grouping the four clauses. Clauses 41 to 44 are linked, given that they are all in Part 7, which is on road traffic offences. In seeking to amend one clause, we may have to look at the consequences for the others, especially clause 41's effect on clause 42. Clauses 43 and 44 are more to do with the disqualification period, but we should also look at them to make sure that there is fairness in the system. It is atrocious that someone who serves time in prison for the road traffic offence of having caused death or grievous bodily injury can start driving again as soon as they get out of prison, so we should look at those clauses.

Before we let you go, Peter, do you want to add anything?

Mr Dolan: Again, I thank the Committee and officials for all their help and support over the years. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much for your time. Rest assured that the Committee is considering the Bill with Enda's memory at the forefront of our minds. Know that.