Bowling, R. v

When fixing a driving disqualification under section 147 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the usual course following a custodial sentence is a period equal to, or only slightly longer than, the custody. The purpose is to avoid unnecessarily impeding rehabilitation, particularly where driving is needed for employment.

The appropriate period nevertheless depends on the individual facts. The nature of the offence may justify a substantially longer period where the public interest requires it. Relevant matters include the offender’s risk, the need for a vehicle on release, and other protective orders already imposed.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to two offences of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, contrary to section 11(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received concurrent sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment and was made subject to a sexual offences prevention order.

The sentencing judge also disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driving licence for four years under section 147 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, because his car had facilitated the offences. The appellant sought an extension of time, leave to appeal, and a reduction of that disqualification.

The central issue was whether a four-year disqualification was excessive in the circumstances.

1. The court granted the 33-day extension of time and leave to appeal. It allowed the appeal against the driving disqualification.

2. Section 147(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 gave the Crown Court jurisdiction to disqualify the appellant. The vehicle had facilitated the offending: it enabled him to approach children, leave the scene, and expose himself while in the car.

3. Ordinarily, where a custodial sentence is imposed, a section 147 disqualification should match, or only slightly exceed, the period of custody. That approach supports rehabilitation and is especially important where the offender needs to drive for work. The public interest may justify a longer period for offences of this kind, but the assessment remains fact-sensitive.

4. The four-year period was excessive. The sentencing judge had found no statutory dangerousness; there were no particular aggravating features; the appellant had pleaded guilty; and he was likely to need his vehicle for his work as a roofer after release. The protective order also prevented him from working with children and from going within 100 metres of school premises.

5. The court quashed the four-year order and substituted a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 24 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. Allowed the appeal against the four-year driving disqualification and substituted 24 months.

• Leeds Crown Court: On 4 January 2008, imposed concurrent sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment for two section 11(1) offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, made a sexual offences prevention order, and imposed a four-year driving disqualification under section 147 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.