Crew, R v

Sentencing for causing death by careless driving requires an objective assessment of the offence and the offender’s culpability. A fact-specific decision in another case does not set a general sentencing standard where the carelessness and risk are materially different.

In fixing disqualification, the risk shown by the offender’s driving is reflected in culpability, but the principal purpose of disqualification is forward-looking and preventive. An unblemished driving record and the absence of aggravating features may materially reduce a disqualification period. Possible and speculative immigration consequences do not mitigate sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in the Crown Court at Nottingham to causing death by careless driving. After a long flight from the United States, he drove while seriously tired, fell asleep momentarily and then over-corrected into the path of an oncoming car. The other driver died.

He received 14 months’ imprisonment, five years’ disqualification and an extended driving test. His renewed application for leave to appeal sentence, after refusal by the single judge, relied on mitigation, a previous decision concerning careless driving, and possible consequences for his United States immigration status. The central issues were whether the custodial sentence and ancillary driving orders were manifestly excessive.

1. The court granted leave to appeal against the disqualification order, treated the application as the appeal, and allowed the appeal to that limited extent. It quashed the five-year disqualification and substituted two years. The renewed application was refused in all other respects.

2. The 14-month custodial sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive. The offence fell within the most serious category in the Definitive Guideline on Causing Death by Driving. The applicant had driven after very little sleep following a long journey, and his carelessness was of a high order, bordering on dangerous driving. The sentencing judge had correctly allowed for the guilty plea, good character, unblemished driving record, remorse and personal mitigation.

3. R v Larke [2009] EWCA Crim 870 did not establish a guideline sentence. It turned on its own facts, including a momentary error by an elderly driver. It did not assist an offender whose continuing tiredness created a known and serious risk. The proper sentence required an objective assessment, notwithstanding the tragedy and hardship suffered by both families.

4. The suggested adverse immigration consequences under the Immigration and Nationalisation Act did not mitigate sentence. The asserted risk to the applicant’s United States status was no more than a possibility and was, on the material before the court, unlikely to occur. The suggested petty-offence exception was inapplicable because the maximum penalty for the offence exceeded one year.

5. The five-year disqualification was manifestly excessive. Although culpability reflected the risk posed by the driving, disqualification is principally preventive and forward-looking. The applicant’s unblemished record and the absence of features such as speed were important. The discretionary requirement to take an extended driving test was nevertheless appropriate because of the high culpability and the proximity of the conduct to causing death by dangerous driving.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By judgment dated 23 November 2009, [2009] EWCA Crim 2851, the court allowed the appeal only as to disqualification, reducing it from five years to two years.
• Crown Court at Nottingham — On 23 July 2009, the applicant was sentenced after a guilty plea to 14 months’ imprisonment, five years’ disqualification and an extended driving test for causing death by careless driving.