Earlier this month the Government made much of plugging a notorious loophole in the motoring laws. It introduced a new offence of causing death by careless driving. Anyone found guilty could receive a prison sentence of up to five years.

Designed to end the anomaly by which those who kill through bad driving which the authorities consider falls just short of dangerous face only a fine, this much-trumpeted change is likely to prove a waste of time.

Last week at Teesside Crown Court a 20-year-old who lost control of his car, which became airborne and crashed into a tree, killing his 17-year-old girl passenger, was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Not only had he consumed eight pints of an alcoholic concoction called tequila slammer, which put him more than twice over the drink-drive limit, but he fled the crash scene, and, when first questioned, denied he had been driving. He also had a previous drink-drive conviction.

This offender was jailed for four years, in reality two. So how often do you suppose that the maximum of five years for the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving will be imposed?

Incidentally, this repeat offender was banned from driving for six years, which means only four after his release. Arguably, long driving bans would be a stronger deterrent than moderate prison sentences. Bans of ten years or more, including life for serious repeat offenders, would soon spread the message that the courts (at last) mean business against those who drive without a thought for others.

Let's stay with this topic. It is hard to imagine a more heartless offence than the carjack at Billingham last week, in which four men staged what the police termed "a scene of distress'' in the middle of the road and then stole the car of a driver who stopped to help. Not content with that, they drove the car at the Good Samaritan, flipping him over the bonnet. Injured badly enough to be kept in hospital overnight, he was perhaps lucky to escape with his life.

If caught, how much liberty should the perpetrators lose? At least ten years, I would say. With the driver banned from driving for ten years after that.

Unfortunately, "tough on the causes of crime'' has not been strikingly effective. So we are left with "tough on crime''. It should be part of some political party's election manifesto to promise a complete overhaul of our crime and punishment laws. To pick an example separate from motoring and street crime, the maximum six months jail tariff for wildlife crime, like badger baiting, doesn't even come close to matching the public's revulsion at the worst of these offences.

And so - hunting is banned from tomorrow. Its passing marks a small step towards Utopia, the ideal of a perfect society. Conceived by Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), who outlined it in a book of that title, it was free of all bloodsports, which More, Lord Chancellor in succession to Cardinal Wolsey, described as "the lowest, the vilest and most abject form of butchery''. Since More not only detested hunting but was executed for refusing to accept Henry VIII as head of the church, we can be sure he is not a favourite of Prince Charles.