Boot, R v

Where an offender continues to drive despite a progressively declining ability to concentrate caused by tiredness, the absence of deliberate dangerous driving does not prevent substantial culpability for deaths caused by the resulting dangerous driving. In reviewing sentence, the number of deaths, the offender’s responsibility to stop and regain alertness, and the devastating consequences must be properly reflected. Positive character, remorse and a good driving record may mitigate sentence, but cannot justify a sentence founded at too low a level.

The offender was convicted at Exeter Crown Court of two counts of causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. While driving a 6.5-ton box van on the A361, he failed to negotiate a bend, crossed double white lines and collided with oncoming vehicles. Two men were killed and two others injured.

The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment and a three-year driving disqualification. The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentences as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the sentences adequately reflected the offender’s culpability and the two deaths.

1. Reference allowed. The Court granted leave and held that the concurrent sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment were unduly lenient. They were increased to concurrent terms of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.
2. The offender’s dangerous driving was not deliberate. However, the evidence entitled the Court to conclude that he had gradually lost concentration through tiredness. He must have appreciated, but ignored, his declining ability to drive safely. Continuing to drive without stopping to rest and regain alertness was irresponsible and reckless.
3. The judge was required to give proper weight to the deaths of two young men. Their number was a material aggravating feature. The Court also took account of the offender’s positive good character, good driving record, genuine remorse and constructive response to imprisonment.
4. The Court considered that the sentence had been founded at too low a level even after allowing for mitigation and the jury’s view that the offender’s driving schedule was demanding. The sentence therefore had to be increased in accordance with the ordinary principles in the relevant sentencing guidelines.
5. The Court additionally stated that, if the judge took account in mitigation of a private letter from the jury foreman concerning the jury’s view of culpability, he should publicly summarise its contents. The public, and particularly the victims’ families, were entitled to know that it was being treated as a mitigating consideration.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, granted leave, found the sentences unduly lenient and increased them to concurrent terms of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Exeter — convicted the offender of two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and imposed concurrent sentences of 28 months’ imprisonment, with a three-year driving disqualification.