Holman, R. v

For a serious offence of careless driving, a fine must reflect both the gravity of the offending and the offender’s means. The statutory maximum is reserved for the worst cases involving an offender able to pay it. Where death has resulted but the later offence of causing death by careless driving was not in force, the ordinary careless-driving guideline remains the starting point. It should receive a very significant uplift for the fatal consequence, followed by proper credit for mitigation.

Driving disqualification protects the public but may also operate as personal deterrence by requiring the offender to reflect maturely upon the consequences. Its appropriate length depends on the circumstances of the particular offence.

The appellant, an inexperienced 18-year-old driver, was involved in a head-on collision while attempting to overtake on a bend. The other driver died. He was acquitted at Winchester Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988, but convicted of the available alternative offence of careless driving.

On 3 July 2009, the Crown Court imposed a £3,500 fine, a two-year driving disqualification, and a six-month default term. An attempted later correction of the default term was ineffective. The appellant challenged the fine, default period and disqualification as excessive. The central issues were the proper approach to a fine where careless driving had caused death, and whether the disqualification should be reduced.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court substituted a fine of £1,000, payable at £200 per calendar month, with 28 days’ custody in default of an instalment. It left the two-year driving disqualification undisturbed.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly considered the appellant’s income, as required by section 164 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, the £5,000 maximum fine was reserved for the worst careless-driving offences committed by offenders plainly able to pay. This was serious careless driving with fatal consequences, but it involved a young, inexperienced driver’s poor decision. There was no speeding, drink, showing off or similar aggravating conduct, and there was substantial personal mitigation.

3. The applicable careless-driving guideline supplied the proper starting point. Although death was a major aggravating feature, the new offence under section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was not in force when the offence was committed. The court therefore applied the ordinary guideline with a very significant uplift for the fatal consequence, then allowed credit for the early willingness to plead guilty and mitigation. A fine is not a monetary valuation of the death; it must provide a fair and proportionate sentence according to offence seriousness and the offender’s means.

4. Disqualification serves public protection, but it may also provide personal deterrence by compelling mature reflection. R v Mitchell [2003] EWCA Crim 2580 was factually inapt: it concerned a collision with a drunken pedestrian who had entered the driver’s path. The sentencing judge had not misjudged the appropriate two-year period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2010] EWCA Crim 107, leave to appeal sentence was granted. The fine and default term were varied; the driving disqualification was upheld.
• Winchester Crown Court: On 3 July 2009, the appellant was convicted of careless driving after acquittal of causing death by dangerous driving. He received a £3,500 fine, a two-year driving disqualification and a six-month default term.