Dunne, R. v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the applicable culpability category and guideline range must be assessed with the harm caused and all aggravating features. Serious and permanent injury to a further victim, evasion of justice, and unlicensed and uninsured driving may materially increase sentence and disqualification. Strong personal mitigation, including youth, good character, intellectual difficulties, a disturbed background and genuine remorse, may nevertheless make an otherwise principled custodial term excessive. A driving ban should begin with the guideline position but be increased where the offender has shown a sustained disregard for road-law requirements.

The appellant, aged 16 at the time, drove his grandmother’s car without permission, licence or insurance. While travelling at about 50 mph in a 30 mph limit and negotiating a bend, he lost control. One passenger died and another suffered serious, permanent injuries. The appellant left the scene and was arrested three days later.

At Guildford Crown Court he was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking causing death and related driving offences. He received four years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, with an eight-year driving disqualification and an extended retest. He appealed both the custodial term and the disqualification as manifestly excessive, principally by reference to R v Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The custodial term was reduced from four years to three years. The driving disqualification was reduced from eight years to five years. The extended retest requirement remained.

2. The offending fell within the intermediate culpability category identified in R v Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996. It resulted from either a momentary dangerous error of judgment or a short period of bad driving. A four-year term following trial was not, in principle, manifestly excessive. The death of one passenger, permanent serious injury to another, the appellant’s attempt to avoid justice, and his unlicensed and uninsured driving were substantial aggravating features.

3. The court nevertheless held that the personal mitigation had unusual cumulative force. The appellant’s youth, good character, intellectual and educational difficulties, disturbed home life, and eventual genuine remorse had to be weighed against the grave consequences. A detention and training order with its 24-month maximum would have been insufficient, but a three-year term under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was proportionate. The later plea to aggravated vehicle taking carried little weight because no separate sentence was imposed and it became effectively inevitable after the jury’s verdict.

4. For disqualification, the guideline starting point for comparable dangerous driving by an offender with an unblemished driving record was about two years. The appellant’s prior illegal driving, lack of licence and insurance, and taking of the vehicle without consent justified a substantial increase. Five years, rather than eight, properly reflected those factors.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2005] EWCA Crim 1269, allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of reducing the detention term and period of disqualification.
• Crown Court at Guildford: Convicted the appellant of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced him to four years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, with an eight-year driving disqualification and an extended retest.