Abbas, R v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, culpability may properly be assessed by reference to warnings received during the journey. A professional driver who continues to drive despite clear indications that fatigue has made him unfit may fall within the most serious culpability category, particularly where passengers’ safety is thereby knowingly disregarded.

Draft sentencing guidelines which may not be implemented are not an appropriate source for the Court of Appeal. Where the sentencing judge has correctly placed the offence within the applicable highest category and selected a starting point within the relevant range, a sentence appeal will fail.

The applicant, a bus driver, pleaded guilty at Bradford Crown Court to causing death by dangerous driving and to two offences of driving without due care and attention. He had continued to drive after earlier incidents indicating that fatigue had made him unfit to do so. The bus later left the road while carrying 44 passengers. A passenger injured in the crash subsequently died from an embolism attributable to his injuries.

The sentencing judge imposed seven years’ imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, having adopted eight years as the notional term before credit for the late guilty plea. A single judge refused leave to appeal. The renewed application challenged the eight-year starting point, principally by reference to the sentencing range in R v Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 316.

1. Application dismissed. The seven-year sentence was not excessive. The judge was entitled to take eight years as the starting point before allowing one year’s credit for the late guilty plea.
2. The court held that draft guidance produced by the Sentencing Advisory Panel was not an appropriate material for the Court of Appeal to use. It remained draft guidance which might never be implemented.
3. The applicant’s culpability was properly placed within the most serious category, albeit at its lower end. His initial belief that he was fit to drive did not determine the issue. During the first journey, he received clear warnings that fatigue had made him unfit, especially the near collision with the bridge parapet.
4. He nevertheless continued to drive a public service bus and disregarded the safety of the 44 passengers in his care. That continued driving after repeated warning signs materially justified the sentencing judge’s assessment of culpability.
5. Applying R v Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 316, the court held that the eight-year notional term fell within the relevant range for the highest culpability category. There was therefore no basis to criticise the term actually imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Single Judge of the Court of Appeal: refused permission to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Bradford: following guilty pleas, imposed seven years’ imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving; no separate penalty was imposed for the two careless-driving offences.