Geale, R. v

A driving disqualification for causing death by careless driving is primarily a forward-looking measure to protect the public from the risk posed by the offender. However, it is also an important element of punishment. Its length must therefore be assessed in the context of the sentence and ancillary orders as a whole, rather than by future risk alone.

Relevant matters include the offender’s culpability, driving record, risk of further offending, and the particular effect of disqualification where driving provides the offender’s livelihood. A professional driver of a large vehicle owes a particularly high standard of care. A period exceeding the statutory minimum may be justified, but it must remain proportionate and not be manifestly excessive.

The appellant, a professional coach driver with a long good driving record, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving after his coach struck and fatally injured a ten-year-old pedestrian during an unsafe turning manoeuvre.

At the Crown Court at Southwark, he received a suspended sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, unpaid work and a three-year driving disqualification. He appealed only against the period of disqualification, contending that it was manifestly excessive in light of his low risk of reoffending, mitigation and reliance on driving for his livelihood.

The central issue was the proper length of a mandatory disqualification for causing death by careless driving.

1. Appeal allowed. The three-year disqualification was quashed and replaced with a disqualification of two years. The suspended custodial sentence and the remaining orders were unaffected.

2. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, disqualification was mandatory for at least 12 months unless exceptional circumstances existed. There were no such circumstances. The statutory minimum nevertheless did not fix the appropriate period in this case.

3. The court approved the approach in Crew [2009] EWCA Crim 2851, and the similar approach in Cully [2005] EWCA Crim 2483, that disqualification principally protects the public by addressing the risk posed by future driving. A low risk, a good driving record and serious financial consequences may make a lengthy ban inappropriate.

4. However, risk was not the sole criterion. Disqualification is also an important part of the overall punishment, as demonstrated by the statutory minimum even where future risk may be absent. The court must assess its length in the context of the whole sentence and ancillary orders.

5. The appellant’s culpability was low but not at the lowest level. His conduct went beyond a momentary lapse because he continued an inherently unsafe manoeuvre while driving a large coach. Drivers of such vehicles are required to exercise a particularly high degree of care. A period above the minimum was justified, but three years was unnecessarily long for public protection and manifestly excessive when balanced against his previous record, age and financial hardship. Two years was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a two-year driving disqualification for the three-year period imposed below: [2012] EWCA Crim 2663.

• Crown Court at Southwark: On 31 May 2012, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, unpaid work and a three-year driving disqualification following a guilty plea to causing death by careless driving.