Rice, R v

For sentencing careless driving causing death, Parliament has made the consequence of the driving crucial. Comparable culpability may therefore attract radically different penalties where one driver causes death and another does not.

Where custody is appropriate but the term is below 52 weeks, the sentencing court must consider whether suspension is appropriate for a suitable defendant. Good character, genuine remorse, personal circumstances and a negligible risk of reoffending may justify suspension, with an appropriate requirement, even in a case involving a fatality.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Huntingdonshire Magistrates’ Court to causing death by careless driving and was committed to the Crown Court at Peterborough for sentence. He received 20 weeks’ imprisonment, fines for unrelated tyre offences and a two-year driving disqualification.

Another driver involved in the same incident had pleaded guilty to careless driving and related offences, but did not cause the cyclist’s death. The appellant appealed against the immediate custodial sentence and the length of disqualification. The central issues were the significance of the fatal consequence despite comparable culpability, and whether the custodial term should have been suspended.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the assessment that the appellant’s driving fell within the middle range of careless driving. It rejected the submissions that the sentencing judge had wrongly found impatience or failed to allow for the other driver’s conduct. The appellant should not have continued overtaking when his view was obstructed.

2. The court also rejected the challenge based on disparity with the other driver. Their culpability could be little different, but Parliament had prescribed radically different maxima for careless driving and careless driving causing death. In such cases, the consequence of the careless driving may determine both the offence and the sentence, irrespective of comparable blameworthiness.

3. The 20-week custodial term was not excessive. However, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the applicable sentencing guidelines, the court should have considered suspension after deciding that custody was appropriate and fixing a term below 52 weeks. The pre-sentence report’s recommendation of suspension had merit.

4. Suspension was appropriate given the circumstances of the offending, the appellant’s exemplary character, deep remorse, personal circumstances and negligible risk of further offending. The 20-week sentence was suspended for two years from its original date, with a requirement of 100 hours’ unpaid work. The appellant was to be released that day, subject to liability to serve the balance if the suspended sentence were breached.

5. The driving disqualification was reduced from two years to 12 months because the original period would seriously impede the appellant’s employment as a professional golf coach.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and varied the Crown Court sentence: [2009] EWCA Crim 1967.

• Crown Court at Peterborough: On 26 August 2009, imposed 20 weeks’ immediate imprisonment for causing death by careless driving, fines for tyre offences and a two-year driving disqualification.

• Huntingdonshire Magistrates’ Court: On 20 July 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.