Khalid, R.

A sentencing court must not increase sentence for the local prevalence of offending merely because of the judge’s personal perception that there is too much offending of that kind. Prevalence requires reliable evidence, timely disclosure to both parties, an opportunity for meaningful submissions, and satisfaction that local harm is exceptionally greater than elsewhere and that an increase is just and proportionate. If the court raises prevalence of its own motion, it must identify the issue and explain its effect on sentence. A sentence materially influenced by an unproven and procedurally unfair prevalence assessment may be quashed and replaced by a sentence based on the individual offending and mitigation.

The appellant, aged 20 and of previous good character, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and driving without insurance. Following a brief police pursuit on icy roads, his vehicle left the road and struck a parked car. The Magistrates’ Court committed him to the Crown Court for sentence.

The sentencing judge imposed six months’ detention in a young offender institution and a 15-month driving disqualification. The judge relied strongly on an asserted local problem of young men driving powerful cars dangerously in Bradford, and considered that immediate custody was needed to send a deterrent message.

The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the custodial term was manifestly excessive and that the judge had unfairly relied on unproved local prevalence without prior notice or evidence. The central issue was whether prevalence could properly aggravate sentence in those circumstances.

Appeal allowed. The Court quashed the six-month detention term and substituted four months’ detention. It varied the driving disqualification to 14 months and confirmed that it would continue until the appellant had passed an extended driving test.

1. The sentencing judge had allowed his concern about the prevalence of dangerous driving in Bradford to affect both the choice of immediate custody and, apparently, the nine-month starting point before credit for plea. A judge’s personal belief that a locality has too much of a particular type of offending cannot justify an increase in sentence.

2. Applying R v Bondzie [2016] EWCA Crim 552, prevalence may aggravate sentence only where reliable evidence is provided by a responsible body or senior police officer. The material must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence in sufficient time for meaningful representations. The court must also be satisfied that local harm is significantly greater than elsewhere, that the circumstances are exceptional, and that an increase is just and proportionate.

3. If the Crown relies on prevalence, it must identify that intention and the supporting material. If the judge raises the issue independently, the judge must similarly invite submissions and explain whether and why prevalence affected sentence. Those safeguards were not followed here. The resulting reliance on prevalence was unfair and erroneous.

4. The offending nevertheless crossed the custody threshold. It involved dangerous driving at speed, passengers, icy conditions, a collision, lack of permission and insurance, and flight from the vehicle. The Court also gave proper weight to the appellant’s good character, youth, brief pursuit, early admission and guilty plea. Those matters warranted a lower term and did not justify the deterrent approach adopted below.

5. Under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the Court confirmed that disqualification would remain effective until the appellant passed an extended driving test.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the six-month detention term, substituted four months’ detention, and varied the driving disqualification: [2017] EWCA Crim 592.
• Crown Court: Imposed six months’ detention in a young offender institution and a 15-month driving disqualification.
• Magistrates’ Court: Following guilty pleas to dangerous driving and driving without insurance, committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.