Ward, R. v

Where a defendant’s own failures to answer bail and surrender to custody have disrupted the ordinary criminal timetable and substantially delayed proceedings, a sentencing judge may properly allow less than the guideline-recommended reduction for a guilty plea. The recommended reduction assumes compliance with the usual procedural timetable. A reduced discount will not make the sentence manifestly excessive where it fairly reflects the defendant’s responsibility for the delay.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to dangerous driving after driving while heavily intoxicated, at excessive speed and with two passengers. The vehicle left the road and overturned, causing injuries to all its occupants.

He had failed to surrender to custody after the incident and later failed to attend a Crown Court hearing. The sentencing judge adopted a starting point of two years’ imprisonment, allowed a 12.5 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, and imposed 21 months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving.

The appellant appealed on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, principally contending that he should have received a greater credit for his plea.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 21-month sentence for dangerous driving was not manifestly excessive.

2. This was an exceptionally serious instance of dangerous driving. The appellant had consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol, was likely to have driven at far above the legal limit, carried two passengers including a child, ignored their pleas to slow down, and drove so fast that he lost control and overturned the vehicle. The judge was entitled to adopt the statutory maximum of two years’ imprisonment as the starting point.

3. The Sentencing Guidelines Council’s recommended 25 per cent reduction for a guilty plea after a trial date has been set proceeds on the ordinary progress of criminal proceedings. The appellant had himself prevented that timetable from operating by failing to answer bail and surrender to custody, thereby delaying the proceedings for more than a year.

4. In those circumstances, the judge was entitled to reduce the credit for the plea to 12.5 per cent. That reduction properly reflected the appellant’s conduct and did not produce an excessive sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the 21-month sentence for dangerous driving.

• Crown Court at Northampton: on 29 April 2013, the appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment.