Stranney, R v

Where extremely serious injury is recklessly caused by dangerous driving, the Crown may lawfully charge an offence under Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 20, alongside dangerous driving. The two-year maximum for dangerous driving does not prevent the court from applying the section 20 maximum when sentencing a valid conviction. Sentences for offences arising from the same incident should reflect totality and ordinarily run concurrently. R v Bridle was fact-specific and did not displace the principle in R v Bain. A sentence within the statutory maximum may nevertheless be manifestly excessive when the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are properly weighed.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Bradford Crown Court to dangerous driving and to two counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. After drinking alcohol, he drove at speed and dangerously with two unrestrained passengers, despite their pleas for him to stop. Both sustained severe injuries.

The judge imposed concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment for the section 20 offences and 21 months for dangerous driving. The appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the judge should have treated the case as subject to the dangerous-driving maximum, and that the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The court rejected the challenge to the sentencing judge’s legal approach, but held that the concurrent terms of three and a half years for the section 20 offences were manifestly excessive.

2. The court agreed with R v Bain [2005] 2 Cr.App.R 319. Where dangerous driving recklessly causes extremely serious injury, there is nothing wrong in principle, and no procedural abuse, in preferring a section 20 charge as well as dangerous driving. The statutory maximum for dangerous driving does not require the sentencing court to disregard the five-year maximum for the section 20 offences.

3. R v Bridle [2002] EWCA Crim. 908 did not establish a contrary rule. Its observation concerning Parliament’s intention was not developed, and its conclusion was reached on its own facts. Any apparent tension was therefore resolved by applying the principle and sentencing approach in Bain.

4. The offences arose from the same incident. The judge correctly applied totality by imposing concurrent, rather than consecutive, custodial terms.

5. The offending involved particularly high recklessness, a sustained and dangerous course of driving after substantial alcohol consumption, a very high risk to life, and severe injuries. Even so, a sentence of three and a half years following guilty pleas gave insufficient weight to the overall circumstances. The court quashed those terms and substituted concurrent terms of two and a half years for each section 20 count, concurrent with the existing 21-month sentence for dangerous driving.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted concurrent terms of two and a half years’ imprisonment: [2007] EWCA Crim 2847.
• Bradford Crown Court — imposed concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment for two section 20 offences and 21 months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving.