Tyson, R v

For causing death by careless driving, seriousness is assessed by the degree of carelessness. The highest guideline category applies where the driving falls not far short of dangerous driving. Even then, the statutory maximum is reserved for the worst cases and a court must not treat the fatal outcome as making a case nearly the worst conceivable example.

The sentencing court must evaluate the driving as a whole, the offender’s record, mitigation and full credit for a guilty plea. A sentence must not seek to value the life lost or provide solace to bereaved relatives.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Teesside Crown Court to causing death by careless driving. He had ridden an uninsured powerful motorcycle at more than 75 mph on a 60 mph trunk road while holding only a provisional licence. He collided with a pedestrian who was crossing the road with a dog. The pedestrian died from severe head injuries.

On 4 November 2009, following the guilty plea on 14 October 2009, the Crown Court imposed three years’ imprisonment, a three-year driving disqualification and an extended driving test requirement. The appellant challenged only the custodial sentence. The central issue was whether the judge had selected an excessive starting point under the applicable sentencing guideline.

Appeal allowed. The Court substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for the sentence of three years.

1. The statutory maximum of five years’ imprisonment was reserved for the worst cases. The fact that death had resulted did not itself justify treating an offence as close to that maximum.
2. Under the Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline, the appellant’s driving fell within the highest seriousness category because it was not far short of dangerous driving. The excessive speed, decision not to brake, absence of insurance and licence, and adverse driving record were substantial aggravating features.
3. The guideline range for a first offender after trial was 36 weeks to three years’ custody, with a starting point of 15 months. The appellant’s antecedents could justify a starting point above that range. However, the judge should also have given some weight to the experienced eyewitness’s assessment that the riding, though fast, was not reckless. The court had to decide whether the case was truly close to the worst imaginable case of careless driving. It was not.
4. A starting point of about three to three-and-a-half years was appropriate. Full credit for the guilty plea, genuine remorse and the other mitigation reduced the proper custodial term to two years.

The driving disqualification and extended-test order were not challenged.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two years’ imprisonment.
2. Teesside Crown Court — the appellant pleaded guilty on 14 October 2009 and, on 4 November 2009, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a three-year driving disqualification and an extended driving test requirement.