Hall, R v

For causing death by careless driving, the statutory minimum period of disqualification does not itself justify a longer ban or an extended retest. The sentencing court must exercise its separate discretions by reference to the offender’s culpability, driving history and the need to protect the public.

A single but grave failure of attention, without further aggravating features and by a remorseful driver with a clean record and low risk of reoffending, may warrant only the minimum 12-month disqualification. It may also make an extended retest unnecessary.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Newcastle-upon-Tyne Crown Court to causing death by careless driving. While driving within the speed limit and sober, she failed to see a heavily intoxicated pedestrian lying in a lit carriageway and drove over him.

The Recorder imposed a community order, disqualified her for three years and required an extended retest. The appeal concerned only the disqualification and retest. The central issue was whether those orders were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Appeal allowed. The three-year disqualification was substituted with the statutory minimum period of 12 months, and the extended-retest requirement was set aside.
2. The offence under section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 carried obligatory disqualification for at least 12 months and obligatory endorsement. It did not carry an obligatory extended retest.
3. Under section 36(1) to (3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, an extended retest was mandatory in specified cases, including causing death by dangerous driving, but not causing death by careless driving. Under section 36(4), the judge nevertheless retained a discretion to require a retest because endorsement was obligatory.
4. The appellant’s culpability consisted of a serious failure to pay attention over sufficient time and distance to avoid the pedestrian. There were no additional aggravating features. She had no relevant convictions, a long clean driving record, substantial remorse and empathy, and a low risk of reoffending.
5. On those facts, disqualification beyond 12 months was unnecessary for public protection. The isolated lapse of attention, despite its fatal consequence, did not indicate a need to establish driving fitness through an extended retest. The conclusion was consistent with R v McCurry [2010] EWCA Crim. 2007.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against the driving disqualification and extended-retest elements of the sentence; substituted a 12-month disqualification and set aside the retest requirement.
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne: on 30 April 2010, imposed a community order, a three-year driving disqualification and an extended-retest requirement following a guilty plea to causing death by careless driving.