May, R. v

Sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving must reflect the offender’s culpability, preserve proportionality with offences involving intended violence, and maintain consistency through guideline starting points. An increase in the statutory maximum does not justify an across-the-board uplift in sentences. It is principally relevant to cases at the highest level of gravity.

A case may properly fall within the most serious culpability category despite not meeting the usual number of listed aggravating features, where other serious aggravating circumstances justify that conclusion. The sentence must nevertheless reflect youth and all individual circumstances. A driving disqualification remains punitive, but must not be longer than necessary where it would unduly impede eventual rehabilitation.

The appellant, aged 18, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chester to causing death by dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, and associated offences. While driving after drinking alcohol and while disqualified, he lost control of a car in a residential area, killed a cyclist, caused serious property damage, and left the scene.

On 22 December 2004, the Recorder of Chester imposed eight years’ detention in a young offender institution for causing death by dangerous driving and disqualified him for ten years, subject to an extended driving test. The appellant appealed against the length of both the custodial sentence and disqualification.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of eight years’ detention and the ten-year disqualification were excessive. They were substituted with six years and six months’ detention in a young offender institution and a seven-year disqualification.

2. In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the court must recognise the devastating loss caused, but must not treat the sentence as a measure of the value of the life lost. The offence involves dangerous driving rather than an intention to injure. Proportionality must therefore be maintained with offences of intended violence, and consistency should be sought through guideline starting points.

3. The court applied the guidance in Cooksley and Others [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) case 1. It also applied Gray, which established that the increased maximum sentence did not require a proportionate uplift across the whole sentencing range. The increase was principally directed to cases of the greatest gravity.

4. This was properly a case of the most serious culpability. Although alcohol was the only listed aggravating factor from the relevant guideline category, the appellant’s recent conviction for drink driving, his recent disqualification, the serious property damage and alarm caused, and his departure from the scene materially aggravated the offence. A double-figure starting point was justified, but a notional starting point of 12 years gave insufficient weight to the appellant’s youth and was too high in all the circumstances.

5. The disqualification was also unnecessarily long. The extended driving test provided a substantial safeguard before any future return to driving. A lengthy disqualification forms part of the punishment, but it may impair the prospect of rehabilitation. Seven years appropriately balanced those considerations.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the orders: [2005] EWCA Crim 1217.

• Crown Court at Chester: On 22 December 2004, imposed eight years’ detention in a young offender institution for causing death by dangerous driving and a ten-year driving disqualification.