Jayamaha, R. v

A sentencing court must not aggravate a dangerous-driving sentence by inferring other criminality, or an interference with the administration of justice, unless the inference is supported by evidence. A defendant’s failure to stop for police does not itself justify speculation about an unidentified offence.

Sentence must reflect the proved seriousness of the driving. Where there is no injury or property damage and the incident is relatively short, a maximum sentence may be manifestly excessive even where immediate custody is justified.

The appellant was convicted at Isleworth Crown Court of dangerous driving after failing to stop for police and driving at speed through residential roads, overtaking on the wrong side of the road and forcing vehicles to take evasive action. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 15 months but increased it to the statutory maximum because the driving had enabled a passenger to escape. The judge inferred that the appellant was concealing another, unidentified criminal offence. The appeal challenged that aggravation and the overall length of sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The two-year term was quashed and replaced with an immediate custodial sentence of six months.
2. The court agreed that the proved driving was serious and warranted immediate custody. The appellant drove away from police, overtook on the wrong side of the road, caused oncoming vehicles to swerve, travelled at substantial speed on residential roads, and forced a police van to move.
3. However, the sentencing judge was not entitled to increase the sentence on the basis that the appellant had been concealing some other criminal offence or had interfered with the administration of justice. There was no evidence linking either the appellant or his passenger to any further offence. The inference was speculative and could not lawfully aggravate sentence.
4. The judge was therefore wrong in principle to increase the sentence from the 15-month figure initially selected. Further, that starting point was itself manifestly excessive. Although the driving was dangerous, no person was injured, no property was damaged, and the episode was relatively short. The appropriate sentence, assessed in the round, was six months’ immediate imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six months’ immediate imprisonment: [2011] EWCA Crim 3158.
• Isleworth Crown Court: On 15 August 2011, following conviction by a judge and jury for dangerous driving, imposed two years’ imprisonment.