Beech & Ors, R. v

A sentencing court may require a disqualified passenger to pass an extended driving test where the passenger’s participation in exceptionally dangerous driving, assessed in its full criminal context, makes the requirement necessary for public protection. Earlier decisions declining to impose that requirement on passengers do not establish an inflexible rule. They depend on their facts.

An appellate court will not interfere with a custodial sentence unless it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Serious professional conspiracies to rob or steal may properly attract substantial sentences, even where the planned robbery was unarmed.

The court considered two renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence by Beech and Bowman, and two sentence appeals by Hadley and Taylor-Powell.

Beech and Bowman had been convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to rob after planning a robbery of a jewellery business. Beech, Hadley and Taylor-Powell had also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal following an attempted cash-machine theft and a high-speed escape from police. The latter two appellants, who were passengers in the escaping vehicle, challenged the requirement that their driving disqualifications should continue until they passed extended driving tests.

The central issues were whether the custodial sentences were excessive and whether an extended test could properly be required of passengers who had participated in the dangerous escape.

1. The renewed applications and the appeals were dismissed. Beech’s sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to rob was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The planned robbery was a serious professional crime against jewellery traders. The absence of weapons did not render the sentence excessive, and Beech had not pleaded guilty.

2. Bowman’s sentence for conspiracy to rob was likewise neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. His role in disposing of the intended proceeds formed part of a very serious conspiracy. The court also observed that the later firearms sentence had been comparatively lenient in light of the guidance in Attorney General's Reference Nos 128 to 141 of 2015 and 8, 9 and 10 of 2016 (R v Stephenson & Others) [2016] EWCA Crim 54. Those involved in trading in firearms could expect sentences of the utmost severity.

3. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 permitted disqualification until an extended test was passed, including for passengers. R v Wiggins [2001] RTR 3 and R v Bradshaw [2000] RTR 41 were decisions on their particular facts. They did not require the court invariably to refrain from imposing the requirement on a passenger.

4. Here the appellants had jointly participated in an escape involving extremely dangerous driving at speeds that placed the public at grave risk. Their culpability, although lower than that of the driver, was extremely high. Their previous dangerous-driving convictions and disqualifications reinforced the need to ensure their competence and appreciation of road safety before they drove again. The sentencing judge had correctly exercised the discretion to require extended tests.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications by Beech and Bowman for leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The appeals by Hadley and Taylor-Powell against the extended-test requirements were dismissed.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: Beech and Bowman were convicted of conspiracy to rob. Beech, Hadley and Taylor-Powell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal and were sentenced on 7 April 2015. Bowman was separately sentenced for encouraging or assisting an offence on 23 April 2015.