Robinson, R v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, a prolonged course of aggressive and highly dangerous driving while over the alcohol limit may properly fall within the highest guideline category. A starting point towards the upper end of the applicable range may be justified.

Where an offender has indicated a guilty plea at an early stage and has been told that full credit will be given, the sentencing court must assess any later factual qualification in its full context. If the qualification is expressly abandoned and the offender accepts sentence on the prosecution case, full credit for the plea may remain appropriate.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to causing the death of a six-year-old child by dangerous driving. He drove a van at excessive speed, carried out dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, passed red traffic lights, lost control in a residential area and mounted the pavement. He had consumed alcohol and left the scene after the collision.

The sentencing judge imposed nine years’ imprisonment, a ten-year driving disqualification and an extended re-test requirement. The judge treated the offending as within the highest category in R v Richardson [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 36. Although an early guilty plea had been indicated, the judge allowed only 25 per cent credit because the applicant had advanced, but later abandoned, an account of post-incident drinking.

The renewed application challenged both the starting point and the reduction for the guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court upheld a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment for a contested case. The offending was properly placed in the highest category identified in R v Richardson [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 36, whose range was seven to 14 years. The applicant’s prolonged, persistent and deliberate dangerous driving, excessive speed, driving while over the alcohol limit, and departure from the scene justified that assessment.

2. The court nevertheless concluded that full credit should have been allowed for the guilty plea. The sentencing judge had told the applicant, when he indicated an early plea, that maximum credit would be given if the plea were tendered at the later hearing.

3. The applicant had subsequently given the probation officer an account suggesting that he drank after the incident. That account conflicted with his earlier denial and with the toxicological evidence. He did not persist in it, did not seek a Newton hearing, and expressly accepted sentence on the prosecution case.

4. A sentencing judge could take account of a changed account in a pre-sentence report and was entitled to regard it as an attempt to minimise culpability. However, on the circumstances of this case, including the abandonment of that account and the earlier indication as to credit, full credit was appropriate.

5. The sentence was reduced from nine years to eight years’ imprisonment. Permission to appeal was granted. A representation order was also granted retrospectively for the appeal hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): permission to appeal was granted and the sentence was reduced to eight years’ imprisonment in [2009] EWCA Crim 450.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: on 23 June 2008, the applicant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and received nine years’ imprisonment, a ten-year driving disqualification, and an extended driving test requirement.