Brown, R (on the application of) v St Albans Crown Court

Judicial review of a Crown Court sentence is exceptional. The High Court intervenes only where the sentence falls outside the broad area of the lower court’s sentencing discretion. The court must consider the sentencing decision in light of the offender’s circumstances, aggravating and mitigating features, and the seriousness and repetition of the offences. A sentence will not be unlawful merely because the High Court might have imposed a different sentence. A substantial period of disqualification for repeated driving without insurance remained within the permissible sentencing discretion.

The claimant pleaded guilty to three offences of driving without insurance under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The magistrates imposed financial penalties and concurrent periods of disqualification totalling three years. On appeal, the Crown Court reduced the disqualification to two years.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Crown Court’s sentencing decision. The Administrative Court considered whether the two-year disqualification fell outside the broad area of the Crown Court’s sentencing discretion, having regard to the claimant’s previous convictions and penalty points.

1. Application dismissed. The two-year disqualification imposed by the Crown Court was not outside the broad area of its sentencing discretion.
2. The appropriate judicial-review test was that identified in R v Michael Keith Wyle (No 2) [2001] EWCA Cr 1433. The High Court does not ordinarily intervene in sentencing decisions unless the sentence falls outside that broad area. The earlier formulation in Cinderman [1981] QB 480, requiring a sentence to be truly astonishing, was also noted.
3. The assessment had to be made on the full information before the Administrative Court. The claimant had three earlier convictions for driving without insurance, carrying 19 penalty points, and had pleaded guilty to three further offences. Those further offences carried potential liability for a further 18 points.
4. The claimant was therefore liable to the totting-up provisions and should have faced a minimum disqualification of six months, subject only to limited discretion to reduce it. That comparison did not make the two-year disqualification excessive in the judicial-review sense.
5. The court also considered the seriousness of repeated driving without insurance. The absence of insurance creates particular risks for persons injured in an accident. In the overall circumstances, the sentence remained within the Crown Court’s discretion.

• Crown Court at St Albans: On 17 December 2004, allowed the claimant’s sentencing appeal to the extent of reducing the disqualification from three years to two years.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Judicial review dismissed. The Crown Court’s sentence was upheld.