Chivers, R. v

A driving disqualification must reflect the seriousness and danger of the offending, but should not, save in exceptionally severe cases, be so long that it impairs rehabilitation and thereby causes disproportionate harm to the offender’s family. In assessing duration, the court should consider prior motoring history, whether the dangerous driving was out of character, and the practical effect of disqualification. Prolonged and aggressive dangerous driving may nevertheless justify a substantial period above the statutory minimum and an extended re-test.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bristol to dangerous driving, affray and criminal damage arising from a prolonged road-rage incident. He received 12 months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving, concurrent sentences for the other offences, a five-year driving disqualification, and an extended re-test requirement.

He appealed, with leave, against the period of disqualification only. The central issue was whether five years was excessive given the seriousness of the driving, his lack of previous motoring convictions, his personal circumstances, and the effect on his ability to work and support his family.

1. Appeal allowed. The five-year disqualification was quashed and replaced with a disqualification of 18 months. The requirement to pass an extended re-test remained.

2. The driving was prolonged, aggressive and dangerous. It exposed other road users, including a cyclist and children, to serious risk. A period above the 12-month minimum was therefore fully justified.

3. However, a disqualification should not, except in exceptionally severe cases, be so long that it impairs rehabilitation. Its consequences for the offender’s family are also relevant.

4. The appellant had no previous motoring convictions or history of bad driving. Although the court did not minimise the danger created on this occasion, the conduct appeared out of character in driving terms. He had already received a proper custodial sentence for the offending.

5. The Crown Court gave no reasons for selecting five years. That period was substantially excessive, particularly because the appellant’s employment depended on driving and he was the breadwinner for a family with young children. Balancing those matters against the gravity of the offence required an 18-month disqualification.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): by [2005] EWCA Crim 2252, allowed the appeal against the period of disqualification and substituted 18 months.
• Crown Court at Bristol: sentenced the appellant on 1 June 2005 to imprisonment, a five-year driving disqualification, and an extended re-test requirement.