Ballard, R v

A sentence for manslaughter by gross negligence arising from driving need not be approached as causing death by dangerous driving under another label. Its seriousness depends on the full course of conduct, including prolonged aggressive driving, intoxication, repeated exposure of numerous people to grave risk, and a total disregard for their safety.

Earlier sentencing decisions do not create a tariff or an upper bracket where their facts are materially less grave. A severe sentence will not be manifestly excessive where it properly reflects those features while allowing for relevant personal mitigation.

The appellant was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of manslaughter by gross negligence after his car struck and killed a 17-year-old following a prolonged episode of dangerous and aggressive driving while heavily intoxicated. He had been acquitted of murder and of the first alternative of unlawful-act manslaughter.

Aikens J sentenced him to 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution and disqualified him from driving for 10 years. A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The Criminal Cases Review Commission subsequently referred the case to the court.

The central issue was whether the 11-year sentence was manifestly excessive when compared with other driving-related manslaughter cases.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 11-year sentence was severe but appropriate and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The jury’s verdicts required the sentencing exercise to exclude any finding that the appellant had intended seriously to injure the deceased or had driven because of the previous ill-feeling between them. Those limits did not reduce the exceptional gravity of the offending. The appellant had engaged in an extended course of aggressive and dangerous driving while very drunk, repeatedly placing groups of people at grave risk before killing the victim.

3. The judge was correct not to treat the offence as merely causing death by dangerous driving under a different label. It was manslaughter by gross negligence, which the court regarded as more serious. The aggravating features included the prolonged nature of the driving, the number of people exposed to danger, the outrageous manoeuvres, intoxication, and the appellant’s total disregard for life.

4. The court considered Ripley [1997] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 19 and Wright [2004] 1 Cr.App.R (S) Case No 4. They upheld sentences of six and eight years respectively, but did not establish a sentencing bracket or tariff. Their facts were much less serious and did not constrain the sentence in this case.

5. The appellant’s youth, virtual good character and limited remorse were taken into account. They did not make the sentence excessive.

6. Separately, the court stated that the Criminal Cases Review Commission ought not to have referred the case. Applying section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, it could identify neither a qualifying new point of law nor qualifying information creating a real possibility that the sentence appeal would succeed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2004] EWCA Crim 3305.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: Astill J refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: Aikens J and a jury convicted the appellant of manslaughter by gross negligence. He was sentenced to 11 years’ detention in a young offender institution and disqualified from driving for 10 years.