Murray, R. v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the Cooksley and R v Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 3186 categories provide starting points rather than a rigid code. The sentencing court must assess the facts of the individual case and may move above the applicable starting range where justified. It must not use the same aggravating feature both to select a higher category and again to increase sentence.

Where the judge has expressly treated the case as one of higher culpability, a sentence materially above the applicable range requires supportable justification. On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal may reduce a sentence that is excessive after allowing for a guilty plea and personal mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court to four counts of causing death by dangerous driving. He drove a heavy goods vehicle while about two-and-a-half times over the legal alcohol limit. After erratic driving, his vehicle struck a car stopped on the M25 hard shoulder. Four members of the same family, including two young children, died.

On 16 May 2007, His Honour Judge Statman imposed concurrent sentences of six years' imprisonment, disqualified the appellant for five years, and required an extended driving test. The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the sentence was excessive in light of the culpability category identified by the sentencing judge, the guilty plea, and the appellant's personal mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The concurrent sentence of six years' imprisonment was excessive and was reduced to four years and six months.

2. The court applied the sentencing guidance in Cooksley, as reviewed in R v Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 3186. The applicable categories are starting points only. They do not replace an assessment of the particular facts, and the aggravating features are not a code.

3. The court reiterated the warning against double counting. A sentencer must not use the same aggravating feature both to place the offence in a higher culpability category and then to increase sentence for that same feature.

4. The sentencing judge had expressly categorised the case as one of higher culpability because of alcohol consumption and multiple deaths. The correct post-trial starting range for that category, following Richardson, was four-and-a-half to seven years. The judge could properly have moved above that range to reflect the exceptionally high alcohol level, the erratic driving before the collision, and the deaths of four people. However, a notional post-trial sentence of about nine years could not be supported consistently with the category selected by the judge.

5. The court observed that a Newton hearing on the disputed duration of the erratic driving might have been appropriate. If prolonged driving had been proved, it could have had a material effect on sentence. The appeal nevertheless had to be decided on the basis found by the sentencing judge. Allowing for the guilty plea and the appellant's personal mitigation, the proper sentence was four years and six months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the concurrent custodial term from six years to four years and six months.
• Crown Court at Maidstone Following guilty pleas to four counts of causing death by dangerous driving, His Honour Judge Statman imposed concurrent sentences of six years' imprisonment on 16 May 2007.