Hristov, R. v

Imprisonment for obstructing a railway is not justified merely because the consequences could have been grave. Where the obstruction resulted from careless and negligent driving, rather than deliberate and concerted conduct, and no person was actually endangered, a substantial fine may be the appropriate sentence. Deterrence does not warrant custody for an isolated and unusual incident of that kind.

A driving disqualification must also be proportionate to the offending and the offender’s record. An extension period linked to custody is unnecessary where custody is replaced by a financial penalty.

The appellant, a professional HGV driver, pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to obstructing a railway by driving an articulated lorry onto an activated level crossing. The vehicle became trapped across the line by the descending barrier. Trains were stopped and Network Rail incurred delay and repair costs. He also admitted failing to report the accident.

The Crown Court imposed eight months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for two years, with a four-month extension period. He appealed against sentence, contending that both custody and the disqualification were manifestly excessive. The central issue was the proper sentence for careless but serious railway obstruction.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the eight-month custodial sentence and substituted a fine of £750, payable within three months, with six months’ imprisonment in default. It reduced the driving disqualification to 12 months.

2. The offending was extremely careless and negligent, but it was not deliberate or concerted. The appellant entered the crossing after failing to notice the warning, hoped to clear it before the barrier descended, and became trapped. Although the potential consequences were serious, no person was actually in danger. The absence of evidence on the original dangerous-driving count was material to that assessment.

3. The court distinguished R v Mirahessari and Vahdani [2016] EWCA Crim. 1733, where deliberate conduct obstructed the Channel Tunnel and severely disrupted services. This isolated and unusual incident did not call for imprisonment or for custody as a deterrent. A substantial fine was the appropriate sentence.

4. Under section 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, a 12-month disqualification was ample given the appellant’s previous good driving record. An extension period under section 35 A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was unnecessary because no custodial sentence remained.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a fine and a reduced period of disqualification: [2017] EWCA Crim 1736.

• Crown Court at Chelmsford: Following guilty pleas, imposed eight months’ imprisonment for obstructing a railway and a two-year driving disqualification with a four-month extension period.