Lambert, R v

For sentencing an offence of causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct under section 35, dangerous cycling may justify a substantial custodial sentence where the offender deliberately rides on a pavement towards foreseeable pedestrians and cannot effectively slow down. The obvious likelihood of collision and serious injury is central to culpability. A resulting death, although not the statutory offence charged, is an aggravating feature where it was not wholly unforeseeable. A prompt guilty plea, youth and lack of previous convictions may reduce sentence, but do not make a sentence excessive when the offending is grave and a sentence near the statutory maximum would have been proper after trial.

The applicant, aged 17 at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct contrary to section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had ridden a bicycle onto a pavement to pass a bus at a bus stop, despite defective brakes, and collided with an 82-year-old pedestrian. She later died from her injuries.

He was sentenced to 12 months’ detention in a young offender institution. He sought permission to appeal against sentence, contending that custody was unjustified or excessive, particularly given his age, lack of previous convictions and prompt plea.

1. Permission to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that 12 months’ detention in a young offender institution was not excessive.
2. The offending was a grave instance of wilful misconduct. The applicant deliberately mounted the pavement to overtake a bus on its inside while it was stopping to collect passengers. It was obvious that pedestrians might be moving towards the bus.
3. He did not, and perhaps could not, slow down because the bicycle’s brakes were ineffective. A collision was at least highly likely, and injury, potentially serious injury, was likely to follow. Death was not wholly unforeseeable, even to a 17-year-old.
4. The victim’s death was an aggravating feature which the sentencing judge was entitled to take into account. The court considered that, following a trial, a sentence at or near the two-year statutory maximum under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 would have been appropriate.
5. The prompt guilty plea properly reduced the sentence to 12 months. The applicant’s inability to begin a course while detained was a consequence of a proper sentence and did not justify reducing it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused permission to appeal against the 12-month detention sentence imposed for an offence contrary to section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• Sentencing court: imposed 12 months’ detention in a young offender institution after the applicant’s prompt guilty plea. The court is not stated in the judgment.