Cully,R. v

The principal purpose of a driving disqualification is, so far as possible, to protect the public. An extended period may be appropriate where an offender’s record or the circumstances of the offence show a continuing risk to the public.

Where dangerous driving does not indicate an appreciable continuing risk, the inevitable disqualification should be kept to the minimum consistent with public protection. The sentencing court may take account of the serious financial and livelihood consequences of a longer ban, including consequences for employees dependent on the offender’s business.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court to dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drink. He drove an articulated lorry while substantially over the alcohol limit, damaged street furniture, ignored police signals to stop, and drove dangerously for about 20 minutes.

He received 12 months’ imprisonment, a five-year driving disqualification, an extended retest requirement, and costs. He did not challenge the custodial sentence. His appeal concerned only the length of disqualification and the retest requirement. He operated a haulage business whose continued operation depended substantially on his ability to drive.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The five-year driving disqualification was reduced to two years, and the requirement to take an extended retest was removed.

2. The court held that the purpose of disqualification is, so far as possible, the protection of the public. A lengthy ban may therefore be appropriate where an offender’s driving record, or the circumstances of the offence, demonstrate a risk to the public from continued driving.

3. Conversely, where the circumstances do not suggest such a risk, the disqualification which follows dangerous driving should be kept to the minimum. The court applied the principles drawn from R v Mark Barry King [2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 503, including the relevance of disproportionate financial hardship where the offender’s livelihood depends on driving.

4. Although this episode involved exceptionally bad and dangerous driving while well over the alcohol limit, the appellant’s recent record, genuine remorse, and assessed very low risk of reoffending showed no appreciable continuing risk to the public. The offence was a one-off incident out of character. A two-year ban sufficiently protected the public, and an extended retest was unnecessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the driving disqualification and removing the extended retest requirement.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Following guilty pleas, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment, a five-year disqualification, an extended retest requirement, and costs. The drink-driving offence had been committed for sentence under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.