Larke, R v

For causing death by careless driving, a momentary failure to ensure that a main road is clear before making a U-turn may amount to carelessness of a high order, approaching dangerous driving. More than one death will generally aggravate seriousness because it increases harm.

Sentence must nevertheless reflect all mitigation, including an early guilty plea, genuine remorse, an impeccable driving record and the particular hardship of custody caused by age. Even where imprisonment is required to mark the consequences of the offence, immediate custody at the top of the guideline range may be manifestly excessive. A suspended custodial sentence may be appropriate.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to two offences of causing death by careless driving contrary to section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. She was committed to the Crown Court at Southampton, where she received two concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment and was disqualified until passing an extended driving test.

She had pulled out of a lay-by to make a U-turn into the path of traffic. A motorcyclist and his passenger were killed. The Court of Appeal considered whether the driving fell within the most serious sentencing category and whether the immediate custodial sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the aggravating feature of two deaths and the substantial mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The concurrent sentences of two years’ immediate imprisonment were manifestly excessive and were replaced with 39 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

2. The appellant’s failure to ensure that the road was clear before pulling out to perform a U-turn was carelessness of a high order. It approached dangerous driving and properly fell within the most serious Sentencing Guidelines Council category for causing death by careless driving.

3. The two deaths aggravated the offence because they increased the harm. The court nevertheless treated the lapse as momentary rather than continuing. It also gave substantial weight to the earliest guilty plea, genuine remorse, unblemished driving history, and the particular harshness of imprisonment for the 74-year-old appellant.

4. Parliament’s creation of the offence under section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988, with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, showed that fatal consequences of careless driving may require imprisonment. On these particular facts, however, a suspended sentence adequately marked the gravity of the deaths while giving proper effect to mitigation.

5. The extended driving-test requirement remained in force. A residence requirement was imposed for the period of suspension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted a suspended sentence: [2009] EWCA Crim 870.
• Crown Court at Southampton: Sentenced the appellant to two years’ imprisonment concurrently on each count after committal from the Magistrates’ Court.
• Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of causing death by careless driving and was committed for sentence.