LZ, R. v

When sentencing a child for grave dangerous driving, the court must balance the offender’s youth, vulnerability and prospects of rehabilitation against the harm caused, the danger created and the interests of victims. A custodial sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because the offender was very young or a pre-sentence report recommended a less severe outcome. The appellate question is whether the sentencing judge considered all relevant factors and imposed a sentence proportionate to the circumstances.

The appellant, aged 14 at the time, took and drove a jeep dangerously on a residential estate in order to impress a co-accused. He lost control, mounted the pavement and caused a tree to strike a buggy carrying two children. One child died from multiple injuries.

He pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to causing death by dangerous driving and aggravated vehicle taking. His Honour Judge Burns imposed 42 months’ detention for causing death by dangerous driving and 18 months concurrently for aggravated vehicle taking, under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and disqualified him from driving for ten years.

With leave, he appealed on the ground that the total sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly given his age, background, remorse and the pre-sentence report.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 42 months’ detention was thoroughly deserved and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that sentencing this 14-year-old offender required a difficult balance. The sentencing judge had to consider both the devastating and enduring consequences for the victim’s family and the interests, age and vulnerability of the young offender. The court was satisfied that the judge had been acutely conscious of the appellant’s youth and had considered all relevant factors.

3. The offending was extremely serious. The appellant knowingly drove while underage, unlicensed, uninsured and without meaningful driving experience. He drove dangerously in a residential area, lost control, mounted the pavement and caused the death of a young child. His departure from the scene without helping those who might have been injured was also relevant to the assessment of seriousness.

4. The concurrent sentence for aggravated vehicle taking did not make it impermissible to take account of the vehicle’s taking when assessing the overall seriousness of the dangerous-driving offence. The court rejected the submissions that the judge had given undue weight to the victim impact, the appellant’s flight, his inexperience or premeditation.

5. A substantial period of detention could not be described as excessive merely because of the appellant’s age or because custody might expose him to other offenders. The appellant’s welfare and rehabilitation remained important, but did not outweigh the gravity of the offending and its consequences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal dismissed. The court upheld 42 months’ detention for causing death by dangerous driving, with 18 months concurrently for aggravated vehicle taking.
• Crown Court: On 31 August 2007, His Honour Judge Burns imposed the detention sentences pursuant to section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and disqualified the appellant from driving for ten years.