W, R v

For causing death by dangerous driving, the seriousness of the offence must be assessed by reference to all proven aggravating features and the harm caused. A case falling within the most serious culpability category may justify a starting point well into double figures after trial, subject to appropriate reductions for a guilty plea and reduced culpability arising from mental illness.

A sentence appeal will fail where the judge was entitled on the evidence to make the relevant factual findings and the resulting sentence properly reflects aggravation and mitigation. Comparative sentencing decisions offer little assistance where their facts materially differ.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to causing death by dangerous driving. He had driven at extreme speed for a prolonged period, weaving through traffic on the M62 before colliding with a car. The collision killed Mrs L and caused grave injuries to her husband.

The sentencing judge imposed six years’ imprisonment and disqualified the appellant from driving for 10 years. The appellant contended that the judge had insufficiently credited his guilty plea and mental condition, and had wrongly found aggravating features, cannabis use and insight into his deteriorating mental health.

The central issue was whether the sentence was excessive in light of culpability, mitigation and comparable sentencing authority.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of six years’ imprisonment was fully justified.

2. The offending displayed the most serious culpability. The judge was entitled to identify numerous aggravating features, including the prolonged and extreme speed, weaving through traffic, the appellant’s awareness of his unfitness to drive, and the grave consequences for the victims. The harm caused was highly material to seriousness.

3. Applying the guideline in Cooksley, Stride & Cook [2003] EWCA Crim 996, the court accepted that the guideline starting point for the most serious category had been six years after trial when the maximum sentence was lower. Since the applicable maximum had risen to 14 years, this case could properly have attracted a starting point well into double figures after trial.

4. The judge properly gave the appellant the full one-third reduction for his guilty plea and a further reduction for his mental state. He also took account of age, relative good character and personal difficulties. Those reductions did not make the final sentence excessive.

5. The judge’s findings about continuing cannabis use and the appellant’s insight into his condition were open on the evidence. The psychiatric material did not establish automatism or insanity, and neither defence was advanced. The appellant was therefore properly sentenced on the factual basis adopted by the judge.

6. Attorney-General’s Reference No 10 of 2006 (Daniel Chubb) [2006] EWCA Crim 703 was materially different on its facts and gave little assistance in assessing this sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s sentence appeal was dismissed: [2006] EWCA Crim 2292.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 20 December 2005 the appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving. On 2 February 2006, His Honour Judge Stewart imposed six years’ imprisonment and a 10-year driving disqualification.