What is the right penalty after a fatal road accident?

This article is provided to you free of charge. If you want to support our team and promote quality journalism, subscribe now.

In the cemetery of Milly-sur-Bradon, a village of 148 souls lost amid the fields and forests of the Meuse region of Lorraine, one grave catches the eye: the stone is barely visible, so covered is it with flowers and marble plaques. The photos show a young, smiling face. That of Chloé, killed in a road accident on 14 November 2021 near Niederkerschen. She had the same blue eyes as her mother Nathalie, who comes to see her every day and takes care of her grave, watering the plants, raking up the dead leaves and changing the decorations with each season. "There hasn't been a Christmas tree in my house since the accident, there's nothing left. I decorate a tree here, with solar lights. She loved Christmas." Chloé's brother, her partner Alizée and their children Jayke and Loé are also frequent visitors. Jayke knows the way by heart to visit "Auntie Chloé", to whom he was so close.

"Chloé was a ray of sunshine, " says Alizée. Chloé was 22 when her life was cut short. A trained pastry chef, she worked at Pains & Traditions in Mont-Saint-Martin, on the border with Luxembourg. She had just entered into a civil partnership and was about to move into a house with her partner, their first purchase. That evening, she was with her cousin Lorie, 19. "They had dinner together and went out clubbing in Luxembourg. Chloé, a responsible driver, didn't touch a drop of alcohol. In fact, she never drank, even at parties." On the way home, Lorie, who had been drinking, wasn't feeling well. Chloé called a friend to help her. They set off again in two cars a little later. "At 2.40am, they crossed paths with a drunk driver."

The driver was a 39-year-old man returning from a night of heavy drinking with two colleagues. He was driving the wrong way at full speed. "Chloé's boyfriend managed to avoid him, but Chloé didn't. He was coming at her much too fast – between 110 and 130 km/h (on a road limited to 90 km/h, ed.). He hit her head-on." Chloé died instantly, Lorie was seriously injured and died 17 days later after undergoing 11 operations. The driver escaped unhurt, but his colleagues did not: one died and the other was seriously injured.

Excessive speed, 2.22g of alcohol in the blood (in grams ‰), traces of drugs in the hair: a lethal cocktail for three people that evening, and an overwhelming sum of aggravating circumstances as defined by the law. Yet, Chloé's family was stunned when the Luxembourg district court handed down its verdict in October 2024: the hit-and-run driver was given a full 42-month suspended prison sentence and a 72-month driving ban – although he was allowed to drive to work and see his family. "I felt such rage, " says Nathalie. "It was hard to take, " adds Alizé. "I cried because I thought, 'This is what Chloé's life is worth'. When her life is priceless." The family then worked hard to obtain an appeal – which only the public prosecutor could request – writing to the public prosecutor, the Grand Duke and the government, and launching an online petition that collected 22.000 signatures.

The public prosecutor finally lodged an appeal and, at the hearing last June, requested a prison sentence of 42 months, including 12 months to be served without suspension. The family lamented: "Why not ask for 42 months without suspension?" The judge emphasised the seriousness of the acts in his ruling: "This collision was the direct, foreseeable and almost inevitable consequence of a chain of seriously wrongful acts, the origin of which lies in an attitude that can only be described as irresponsible, reckless and indicative of profound selfishness", adding that the defendant had made excuses that "seemed mechanical and disconnected from the seriousness of the harm caused".

These were damning words, but the judge did not go beyond the sentence requested by the prosecution. The defendant did not even attend the hearing. "What's more, the custodial sentence can be reduced, " sighs Alizée. The family has appealed to the Court of Cassation, in the slim hope that the ruling will be overturned and lead to a new hearing before the Court of Appeal, made up of other judges. "It won't bring her back to us, but we want him to rot in prison, " says Alizée. "Right now, he's enjoying his family, his children, going on holiday. Nothing has changed for him. In my opinion, he feels no remorse."

Last year, 18 people died in road accidents. A sad toll that struggles to fall from year to year – it fluctuates wildly – while the number of serious injuries tends to rise. "I think that this reduction is partly due to the fact that emergency services are arriving more quickly and to advances in medical science", comments Carine Nickels, Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Road Traffic Victims. Because the main causes of accidents have not changed: speed was involved in 44 per cent of fatal accidents in 2024, as well as the consumption of alcohol (17 per cent) or drugs (17 per cent). These were the three factors combined in the accident that claimed Chloé's life.

But when the damage is done, is the legal response satisfactory? The Luxembourg Highway Code provides for a prison sentence of 8 days to 3 years for drunk-driving – and the same sentence for unintentional bodily harm, even though the consequences are more serious. In the case of manslaughter, the judge can impose a prison sentence ranging from 3 months to 5 years. And the law is even stricter than before: "In 2007, the legislator introduced a specific criminal regime for traffic accidents in order to depart from the Criminal Code and increase the responsibility of drivers, " explains the Ministry of Mobility and Public Works in a written response to the Journal. Previously, manslaughter was only punishable by up to two years' imprisonment.

Minimum penalties

A heavier sentence, but still far below what is provided in other countries, particularly where there are aggravating circumstances. In Denmark, the minimum sentence for road homicide is set at three years if alcohol or drugs are involved. In the Netherlands, the basic sentence is set at 3 years and is increased to 9 years in the case of aggravating circumstances. In Italy, the concept of road homicide was introduced in 2016, increasing the penalty to 8 to 12 years in cases involving alcohol or drugs, compared to 2 to 10 years previously. In some American states, offenders responsible for fatal road accidents with aggravating circumstances can even face life imprisonment.

What the victims' families are criticising is not so much the low sentence that could be imposed as the sentence actually handed down by the judge. For the hit-and-run driver who caused Chloé's death, as for others, the maximum sentence is rarely imposed. A simple review of convictions in the press is enough to convince you of this. For example, in an accident in 2023, a 14-year-old boy died in a road accident and three others were injured. The driver, who expressed no remorse, was given a three-month suspended prison sentence, which was less than the prosecution had requested. Or this collision in 2017: one vehicle was travelling the wrong way, the other narrowly avoided it but hit a tree, and both drivers were highly intoxicated. One driver and his passenger died. The verdict for the other driver was a two-year suspended sentence, whereas the prosecution had requested a four-year suspended sentence.

For legal experts, however, proportionality is respected. "The person responsible for a traffic accident resulting in the death of a human being is liable to more severe prison sentences and fines than those laid down for involuntary manslaughter committed outside the context of road traffic", points out Jean Minden, a lawyer at the Court, who adds that "the person responsible for a fatal traffic accident may also be sentenced to a driving ban of up to 15 years" or "have his vehicle confiscated". He continues: "This broad arsenal of penalties gives judges the opportunity to impose a sentence that is proportionate and adapted to the particular circumstances of each case. In my opinion, there is no need to increase the penalties incurred, especially as the maximum penalty currently provided for – five years' imprisonment, which can even be increased to ten years' imprisonment in the event of a repeat offence – is only very rarely imposed by our courts." All the more so since "for a first-time offender, a suspended prison sentence is almost always granted, especially since the judge no longer has to give reasons for granting this favour in the absence of a repeat offence".

What is the reasoning behind these voluntarily lighter sentences? "Like many judges, I believe that the penal response to involuntary offences should not, in principle, be prison, " says Minden. "This 'ultima ratio' is only really justified in the case of dangerous repeat offenders and for particularly serious, intentional crimes and offences such as assault or murder, deliberate bodily harm, rape, burglary, etc." In any case, the lawyer points out, "it is a fact of criminology that the deterrent effect of repression alone remains very limited, so that the fight against a possible upsurge in road traffic offences cannot call for an exclusively penal response". Hammelmann also believes that prison is not the solution. "They are not suitable sentences for traffic offenders, because normally it is not intentional – but for certain cases, for real traffic criminals, I would not argue against custodial sentences."

The modulated driving ban is also giving rise to debate. "The judge withdraws the licence but often allows the person to go to work, " says Hammelmann. "In France, this is hardly ever done any more. I think we live in a materialistic society, where the economy is above everything and above morality. I'm shocked to see that a traffic offender can continue to drive – only on business trips, but there are no effective controls. It's incomprehensible to the victims and their families." The Ministry of Mobility justifies this measure "above all in order to avoid redundancies due to the loss of driving licences".

And while several countries – France since this summer – recognise a specific offence of "road homicide", this is not the path envisaged in the Grand Duchy. "The National Road Safety Plan 2024–2028 makes no provision for such a measure, " is the laconic response from the Ministry of Mobility. Nor is the idea convincing Minden, who "sees no point in creating an additional criminal offence when judges have all the levers at their disposal to hand down a sentence appropriate to the particular circumstances of each offence they have to deal with. We should only touch the law with a trembling hand, avoiding the reflexes of criminal populism that tend to legislate in response to the emotion provoked by isolated incidents".

Unintentional, an inappropriate adjective

However, the concept of road homicide is strongly supported by victims and their families, who are offended by the term "involuntary homicide". "For us, it's not manslaughter", says Alizée. "Your tyre bursts, you have an accident, it's involuntary. But as soon as you get behind the wheel while drinking, taking drugs or driving fast, it becomes voluntary." In Chloé's case, "the driver had 2.22 grams (per thousand, ed.) in his blood – that's a huge amount! And he still managed to find his car, get in it, start it up and drive for I don't know how many kilometres. So he's someone who's used to drinking." Carine Nickels adds: "Is someone who knowingly drives at 200 km/h on a road with a 90 km/h speed limit any more or less at fault than someone who has had three glasses of wine and gets behind the wheel?

Nickels speaks from experience. Because it was a driver who was going far too fast that turned her life upside down 13 years ago. "At the time, the driver was travelling at 100 km/h on a road with a 50 km/h speed limit. There was a very sharp bend on the left-hand side that he didn't see – a bend you can't take, not even at 50 km/h. He saw the bend too late, tried to brake and we hit a tree at 87 km/h. I was sitting in the back seat."

And at the time, the sentence she received seemed derisory. "The prosecutor asked for prison and a five-year driving ban. In the end, he was fined 1.500 euros, given 120 hours of social work and had his licence withdrawn for 18 months, but with a full suspended sentence. I was beside myself because I said to myself 'I've lost everything, I've lost my mobility, my legs, my privacy, my independence'. At the age of 36, I found myself having to live in a home and I couldn't imagine anyone letting him go on living his life normally."

Over the years, however, his feelings have changed: "Looking back, I say to myself, 'A heavier sentence, what would it have changed in the end?' For me, it wouldn't have changed anything. It wouldn't have given me back what I'd lost, I wouldn't necessarily have been any better off, and I don't know if it would have changed the way he sees, thinks or even drives. And prison, in a case like that, I think it's a bit too extreme. In my opinion, these people need to be made aware of what they have caused. On the other hand, even today, I tell myself that he never once asked me for forgiveness and that's what touches me."

In this sense, the creation of the offence of "road homicide" could help, according to Nickels. "It would really make a difference to 'manslaughter', it would give victims recognition of the accident in which they were injured, recognition of the fact that they were harmed. That's often what they're missing, and that's what they're still telling us years later in our discussion groups."

For the victims and their families, road homicide would be a strong gesture, a political and moral support to be introduced. For legal experts, it would be an unnecessary re-characterisation – but other elements would need to be considered. "It would be preferable to concentrate efforts on the effective application of existing laws and to ensure that cases are tried within a timeframe close to the facts, " suggests Minden. "Unfortunately, this is not at all the case: our firm has just had a driver summoned in 2025 for having committed an offence in 2022… To be understood, the penalty must closely follow the offence committed."

Hammelmann, for his part, suggests the creation of a specific offence of "endangering the life of others" like the one that exists in France for a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs. "Our legislation only punishes the consequences of behaviour on the road, whereas this offence would punish the behaviour itself if there were no dramatic consequences The bill to this effect tabled by former Justice Minister Sam Tanson (déi Gréng) remains at a standstill. In terms of awareness-raising, the French Road Safety Authority is offering rehabilitation courses to make offending drivers aware of the risks they run.

For its part, the Ministry of Mobility published a new national road safety plan last July. Only one measure concerns repression: "a working group bringing together the main players concerned will be set up to propose tougher penalties, especially in the case of offences and repeat offenders" driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

A legislative response that is still timid and inadequate in the eyes of victims and their families. They still feel that their loss and pain are being ignored and denied. As Chloé's brother bitterly told the judge: "If tomorrow I get in my car and kill you, I'll have nothing, I'll walk out freely." How many lives have been cut short and how many loved ones left with a sense of injustice?