Hampson, R. v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the court should use the relevant culpability category and starting point, while avoiding double counting aggravating features. A prolonged course of very bad driving, competitive driving, excessive speed, disregard of warnings, unlicensed and uninsured driving, and serious additional injury can justify the most serious category.

Youth, remorse and rehabilitation require careful weight. They do not make a severe sentence manifestly excessive where the seriousness of the driving and the offender’s history justify it. Sentencing comparisons must account for the particular mitigation in each case.

The appellant, aged 16 at the time of the offence, was convicted at Leicester Crown Court of causing the death of his 15-year-old passenger by dangerous driving. He had driven an unroadworthy car without a licence or insurance. The driving was prolonged, fast and competitive, and involved disregard of warnings. A second passenger sustained serious injuries.

On 6 October 2005, the judge imposed five years’ detention and disqualified the appellant from driving for six years, subject to an extended test. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that insufficient weight had been given to his age, remorse and evidence of rehabilitation. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The five-year sentence was severe for a 16-year-old, but it was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court applied the culpability framework in R v Cooksley [2004] 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 1. The relevant aggravating features included greatly excessive speed, competitive driving and showing off, disregard of passenger warnings, a prolonged course of very bad driving, driving without a licence or insurance, and serious injury to a second victim. The court treated the offending as falling within the most serious category. It also noted that the vehicle defects had not contributed to the collision and that the earlier motoring convictions could not be assumed to be serious.

3. The court gave weight to the appellant’s shock and remorse, his age, and evidence that he had begun to improve his conduct. It recognised that custody bears more severely on a 16-year-old and that rehabilitation is especially important for a youth. Those matters did not outweigh the gravity of the driving and the appellant’s previous offending.

4. R v Dunne [2005] EWCA Crim 1269 did not require a lower sentence. Although it had similarities, its reduction in sentence depended particularly on the offender’s unusual personal mitigation. The present offending was more prolonged and involved competitive driving. The court also considered sentences upheld for offenders of similar age in R v Foster [2003] 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 547 and R v Akhtar [2004] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 463.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2006] EWCA Crim 163, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leicester — convicted the appellant on 26 August 2005 of causing death by dangerous driving and, on 6 October 2005, imposed five years’ detention and driving disqualification.