Oliver, R. v

Where a court imposes imprisonment and a disqualification for the same driving offences, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 section 35A requires both a discretionary disqualification period and an appropriate extension period. The discretionary period may reflect significant presentence remand so that a remanded offender is not disqualified for longer than an offender sentenced without remand. The extension period will ordinarily be one-half of the custodial term. A court may not make a further extended driving-test order while the offender remains disqualified under an existing such order.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne to four offences of driving while disqualified and two offences of dangerous driving. He received a total of 24 months’ imprisonment, a four-year driving disqualification expressed to begin on release, and an order requiring him to take and pass an extended driving test.

His challenge to the custodial sentences, based on the effect of his visual disability in custody, failed. The Court of Appeal considered whether the disqualification complied with Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 section 35A and whether a further extended-test order could lawfully be made while an earlier order remained in force.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The total custodial sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The appellant’s visual injuries did not justify a reduction, particularly because they pre-dated offences of dangerous driving which created a serious risk to others.
2. Disqualification. Section 35A applied because imprisonment and disqualification were imposed for the same offences. Under section 35A(2), the court had to impose both a discretionary disqualification period and an appropriate extension period. Ordinarily, the extension is one-half of the custodial term, so that custody does not erode the practical effect of the disqualification.
3. Following the guidance in R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, significant remand time may be taken into account when fixing the discretionary period. Otherwise, a remanded offender may be disqualified for longer than an offender who was not remanded. Here, a four-year discretionary period and a 12-month extension would have produced five years had there been no remand. Giving effect to the remand period, the court substituted a total disqualification of four years and six months, comprising three years and six months’ discretionary disqualification and a 12-month extension.
4. Extended driving test. Section 36(7) prohibited a further extended-test order while the appellant was already disqualified until passing such a test. He remained subject to an earlier order and had not passed the test. The new order was therefore unlawful and was quashed.

Leave was granted and the appeal was allowed only to vary the disqualification and quash the unlawful extended-test order.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2016] EWCA Crim 2017, the court upheld the custodial sentence but varied the disqualification and quashed the further extended-test order.
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne: The appellant pleaded guilty to four offences of driving while disqualified and two offences of dangerous driving. He received 24 months’ imprisonment, a four-year disqualification stated to commence on release, and an extended-test order.