Watson, R v

Individual appellate sentencing decisions in comparable dangerous-driving cases must be given proper weight, even though they are not guideline cases and each depends on its facts. Their broad thrust may constrain sentence, but they do not impose an absolute ceiling. Deliberate road-rage driving directed at a public servant, using a powerful vehicle as a potential weapon, is gravely aggravated and warrants immediate custody. The sentence must nevertheless remain proportionate when compared with analogous cases.

The appellant, a chauffeur of previous good character apart from minor road-traffic offences, was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of dangerous driving. After a dispute over parking, he deliberately drove his Mercedes at a traffic warden, forcing him to avoid the vehicle. The Recorder found that the appellant returned shortly afterwards and made a second deliberate attempt.

On 9 March 2007, the Recorder imposed 20 months’ imprisonment and disqualified the appellant from driving for three years, with an extended re-test requirement. The appellant appealed only against the custodial term. He accepted that custody was justified, but contended that the length of the sentence was excessive in light of comparable road-rage sentencing decisions.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment. The three-year disqualification and extended re-test requirement were unchanged.
2. The appellant’s conduct plainly justified an immediate custodial sentence. He deliberately drove a large and powerful vehicle at a traffic warden performing his public duties, after making threats and throwing a stone. The vehicle was used as a potentially deadly weapon. The deliberate return to make a further attempt was a substantial aggravating feature.
3. The court nevertheless had to give proper weight to the broad thrust of earlier Court of Appeal sentencing decisions. Howells [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 61 and Joseph [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 20 showed a sentencing range of six to 12 months in comparable road-rage dangerous-driving cases where no injury resulted and alcohol was not involved.
4. Those decisions were not guideline cases and did not establish an inflexible maximum of 12 months. Each depended on its own facts. However, although the Recorder was best placed to assess the seriousness of the conduct, the earlier decisions constrained the sentence which could properly be imposed. In the circumstances, 12 months’ imprisonment was the appropriate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment for 20 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook On 9 February 2007, convicted the appellant of dangerous driving. On 9 March 2007, imposed 20 months’ imprisonment, a three-year disqualification and an extended re-test requirement.