Bolam, R v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the applicable guideline level and aggravating features must be balanced against substantial personal mitigation. An offender of effective good character with an impeccable long-term driving record may properly receive the guideline starting point after trial, even where excessive speed for the conditions, avoidable distraction, knowledge of a mechanical defect, and serious injury in addition to death are present.

Where an appellate court reduces the custodial sentence, it should also reconsider a consequential driving disqualification. A disqualification that would substantially outlast the substituted custodial term may be reduced to a proportionate period.

The appellant was convicted at Leeds Crown Court on 2 April 2009 of causing death by dangerous driving. He drove a 13-tonne road sweeper on a wet road while aware of concerns about its anti-lock braking system. After emergency braking, the rear wheels locked, the vehicle crossed the carriageway, and collided with a car. Mrs Nazir was killed and Mr Nazir was injured.

The sentencing judge placed the case between levels 1 and 2 of the Sentencing Guidelines Council framework, but imposed seven years’ imprisonment and an eight-year driving disqualification. The appellant appealed, by leave of the single judge, against sentence length. The central issue was whether the maximum sentence within the level 2 range gave sufficient weight to his effective good character and impeccable long-term driving record.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court quashed the seven-year term and substituted five years’ imprisonment. Although the offending contained serious aggravating features, including excessive speed for the conditions, avoidable distraction, knowledge of a mechanical defect, and serious injury in addition to death, the five-year level 2 starting point was the appropriate sentence after trial.

2. The appellant’s effective good character and, particularly, his impeccable long-term driving record were substantial mitigation. Those features meant that a sentence at the top of the four-to-seven-year level 2 range was excessive. The court stressed that sentencing cannot answer the family’s loss, but must position the facts calmly and dispassionately within the appropriate sentencing parameters.

3. Disqualification varied consequentially. The eight-year driving disqualification was also quashed and replaced by one of five years. Once the custodial term had been reduced, it would have been unwise and unhelpful to retain a disqualification that would continue for about three years after the end of the substituted term of imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): sentence appeal allowed. The seven-year custodial sentence and eight-year disqualification were quashed and replaced by five-year terms.
• Crown Court sitting at Leeds: on 2 April 2009, the appellant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with an eight-year driving disqualification.