Magee, R v

In sentencing for causing death by careless driving, the court must identify the guideline category which most nearly matches the offence. It must then assess all aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the degree and combination of features which place the offence in that category. A particularly serious case may justify a provisional sentence above the category range, provided it remains within the statutory maximum.

The absence of a legal duty to use available safety equipment does not prevent a deliberate failure to use equipment capable of avoiding a known blind-spot risk from aggravating the offence. The overlap between guideline ranges for careless and dangerous driving does not mean that a serious careless-driving case has been sentenced as dangerous driving.

The appellant, an experienced lorry driver of previous good character, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving after his articulated lorry struck and killed a cyclist while he was moving from an unsafe parking position across the carriageway.

At the Crown Court at Maidstone, His Honour Judge Joy imposed three years’ imprisonment on 3 March 2017 and disqualified the appellant from driving for five years and six months. The appellant appealed his sentence. He contended that it was manifestly excessive, that the judge had effectively sentenced him for dangerous driving, and that undue weight had been given to his failure to use a voluntarily fitted nearside camera.

The central issue was whether the judge had properly applied the Definitive Guideline for causing death by driving and whether the resulting sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was severe but was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly followed the guideline structure. Having selected the highest category for careless driving, the judge was entitled to consider why the offence fell within it. Multiple aggravating features, or a particularly serious instance of one feature, could justify moving above the starting point and, exceptionally, above the category range before allowing credit for a guilty plea.

3. The appellant’s failure to use the nearside camera and monitor was properly treated as aggravating. Although there was no legal requirement to fit or use the equipment, it was available to reduce the lorry’s blind spot. The evidence showed that the cyclist would have been visible on the monitor during the manoeuvre. By electing not to use it, the appellant accepted the risk that someone would be in the blind spot.

4. The judge had not sentenced the appellant as if he had committed dangerous driving. The guideline expressly contemplated overlap between sentences for particularly serious careless driving and the least serious dangerous-driving cases. The judge had instead explained why this careless-driving offence, involving unsafe parking, inadequate mirror use, no use of the monitor, and late indication, was exceptionally serious.

5. The court recognised the appellant’s remorse, good character, and long unblemished driving record. It nevertheless held that the grave aggravating circumstances made the sentence properly open to the judge. The related disqualification therefore remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed. The court upheld the three-year sentence imposed for causing death by careless driving.

• Crown Court at Maidstone: On 3 March 2017, His Honour Judge Joy imposed three years’ imprisonment and disqualified the appellant from driving for five years and six months.