Gibson, R v

Membership of the armed forces and the likely loss of a military career are relevant sentencing considerations. They do not, however, require a non-custodial sentence where the seriousness of the offending makes custody necessary. The sentencing judge must assess the particular service career and the offending, and decide whether any public benefit in preserving that career outweighs the ordinary public interest in punishment.

A sentencing data-collection form exists only to assist statistical analysis. It is not part of the sentencing decision or the appellate record. The validity of a sentence is determined by what the judge says in open court.

The appellant, aged 18, pleaded guilty to aggravated taking of a motorcar, driving whilst unfit through drink, and driving without insurance. After heavy drinking, he took his mother’s car and drove dangerously through Leeds while attempting to evade police. He crossed red lights, drove on the pavement, collided with a parked van and ultimately crashed.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences totalling 12 months’ custody. The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive because custody would almost inevitably end his Army career. The appeal also raised, briefly, the relevance of a sentencing survey form used for statistical data collection.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 12 months’ custody was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The gravamen of the offending was dangerous driving through urban streets while very drunk and while attempting to escape from the police. The absence of injury was a matter of chance.

2. The judge was entitled to treat 18 months after a contested trial as appropriate and to reduce it to 12 months for the early guilty plea and admission of guilt. The drink-driving sentence was properly concurrent because the intoxication was a serious aggravating feature of the principal offence of aggravated taking.

3. The appellant’s Army service, his efforts to improve himself, and the likely consequence that custody would end his military career were substantial mitigation. A sentencing judge may decide in an appropriate case that the public interest favours preserving a useful military career. That assessment depends on the circumstances of the career and the offending. It did not justify a non-custodial sentence for this serious conduct merely because the appellant was a serviceman.

4. The court also explained the limited role of the sentencing survey form required under sections 128 to 130 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Its sole purpose is the collection of information for later statistical analysis by the Sentencing Council. Unless used by a judge as an aide-memoire, it has no bearing on the sentencing decision. An appeal court will assess the sentence by the judge’s public remarks and transcript, not by a subsequently completed data form.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the total sentence of 12 months’ custody in [2010] EWCA Crim 2813.

• Crown Court: imposed concurrent sentences totalling 12 months’ custody after the appellant’s guilty pleas. No citation is stated in the judgment.

• Magistrates’ Court: the appellant entered guilty pleas. The judgment does not state the procedural route by which sentence came before the Crown Court.