Jenkins, R. v

Where a single incident of dangerous driving causes serious injury to several victims, sentences on separate counts should generally run concurrently. Each concurrent sentence may be aggravated to reflect the harm to all victims and the other aggravating features. Consecutive sentences will normally offend the totality principle because there was one act of dangerous driving.

A court may have regard to guidance for causing death by dangerous driving when sentencing for serious injury, provided it recognises that no death occurred. Credit for a guilty plea must reflect its timing and the strength of the prosecution case.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Newport Crown Court to two offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He had driven at excessive speed in heavy rain in a 30 mph area, crossed into the path of another vehicle and seriously injured both occupants. He also had a provisional licence and no insurance.

The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences of three years' imprisonment, totalling six years, after allowing one-third credit for the guilty pleas. The appellant challenged only the custodial term. He contended that the offences arose from one incident, that consecutive terms offended totality, and that the judge had placed excessive weight on guidance concerning causing death by dangerous driving.

1. Appeal allowed. The consecutive custodial sentences were quashed and concurrent sentences of three years and seven months were substituted on each count.
2. The court followed R v Noble [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 65. Although there were separate charges and two gravely injured victims, there had been one act of dangerous driving in a single incident. Consecutive terms should not normally be imposed in those circumstances. The proper course was to pass concurrent sentences, while aggravating each sentence to reflect the harm caused to both victims. The Sentencing Council totality guidance supported that approach.
3. Following R v Dewdney [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 5, the sentencing judge was entitled to have regard to the guideline for causing death by dangerous driving, provided that he recognised the absence of a fatality. The pre-plea starting point of four years and six months was justified by the sustained and deliberate excessive speed, the conditions, the appellant's prior motoring record, the additional offences and the exceptionally serious injuries.
4. The full one-third guilty-plea reduction was excessive. The plea was not indicated until the Crown Court and the evidence was overwhelming. A 20% reduction produced three years and seven months. The substituted concurrent terms did not contravene Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 11(3), because the appellant was not dealt with more severely overall. The disqualification and extended-retest order remained in force.

Obiter, the court observed that the five-year maximum under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 1A might provide insufficient sentencing range for the most serious non-fatal cases involving multiple victims. It invited legislative reflection, particularly because the sentence should not depend on whether prosecutors charge one count or several.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal and substituted concurrent custodial sentences: [2015] EWCA Crim 105.
• Newport Crown Court: on 6 June 2014 imposed two consecutive sentences of three years' imprisonment following guilty pleas to two offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.