Attorney General's Reference No. 123 OF 2006

For causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed alcohol limit, sentence must reflect the offender’s level of culpability and all grave aggravating features. The reassessed sentencing ranges in R v Richardson and others [2006] EWCA Crim. 3186 should be used.

Very high alcohol consumption, knowingly driving an unsafe vehicle, driving while unlicensed and uninsured, and persistence in driving despite those risks may place an offence at the top of the higher-culpability range, or arguably within the most serious category. A guilty plea and remorse must be given proper credit, but cannot leave such aggravating features insufficiently reflected in the sentence.

The Attorney General applied for leave to refer as unduly lenient a three-year sentence imposed at Aylesbury Crown Court on Charles Sharp. He had pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed alcohol limit, contrary to section 3A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and to driving without a licence and insurance.

Sharp drove a tipper truck while substantially over the alcohol limit. The truck left the road and his passenger died. The vehicle’s brakes were defective, and Sharp accepted that he knew they were spongy. The central questions were the proper culpability category and whether the sentence properly reflected the aggravating features.

1. The court granted leave for the Attorney General’s reference, quashed the three-year sentence, and substituted five years’ imprisonment. The order that 201 days spent on remand count towards the sentence remained in force.

2. The governing sentencing guidance was that stated in R v Richardson and others [2006] EWCA Crim. 3186, which reassessed the starting points in R v Cooksley [2003] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 275. The ranges were: 12 months to two years where there were no aggravating circumstances; two to four and a half years for intermediate culpability; four and a half to seven years for higher culpability; and seven to 14 years for the most serious culpability.

3. Sentencers must focus on culpability. Here the manner of driving could not be precisely assessed, but the offender’s culpability was very high. He was heavily intoxicated, unlicensed and uninsured. He drove a tipper truck despite knowing that its brakes were defective, and continued to drive despite the foreseeable risks created by his alcoholism and drinking.

4. The case was at the top of the higher-culpability bracket and was arguably within the most serious bracket. The sentencing judge’s apparent four-year starting point, and resulting three-year sentence after credit for the plea, failed to reflect the aggravating features. After a contested trial, a sentence of about seven to eight years would have been expected; after the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was five to six years. Taking account that this was the second judicial consideration of sentence, five years was substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave for the Attorney General’s reference, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed the three-year term and substituted five years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: On 4 October 2006, imposed three years’ imprisonment, a five-year driving disqualification and an extended driving test requirement following guilty pleas.