Wall, R v

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the applicable guideline level depends predominantly on the standard of driving and the degree of risk created. The presence of more than one Level 3 feature does not require categorisation as Level 2. The court must assess whether the overall driving created a significant rather than a substantial risk of danger.

Personal mitigation, including genuine remorse, a good driving record, assistance at the scene and positive good character, may justify a substantial reduction from the guideline starting point. An appellate court will not increase a sentence merely because it might have weighed aggravating and mitigating factors differently, where the sentencing judge correctly applied the guideline and the sentence was within the proper range.

The offender was convicted after trial at the Crown Court sitting at Manchester Crown Square of causing the death of a pedestrian by dangerous driving. He drove through an amber traffic light, having entered a lane marked for left-turning traffic, and continued into a junction at a speed inappropriate for the circumstances. He failed to see or respond to the pedestrian waiting at the crossing before she stepped into the road.

His Honour Judge Field QC classified the offence as Level 3 under the definitive guideline and imposed two years’ imprisonment. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the combination of the driving features required Level 2 categorisation or a higher sentence.

1. The court granted leave to refer but declined to interfere with the two-year sentence. It was not unduly lenient.

2. The definitive guideline distinguishes the three offence levels principally by the standard of driving and the degree of risk created. Level 3 concerns a significant risk of danger. Level 2 requires a substantial risk. Although a combination of Level 3 determinants and aggravating factors can justify moving to a higher level, that result is not automatic.

3. The judge was entitled to classify this offending as Level 3. The offender drove through the junction too fast for the circumstances, failed to have proper regard for the pedestrian and disregarded the lane markings. Those features created a significant risk. They did not require the conclusion that the risk was substantial. The examples of Level 2 offending in the guideline involved distinctly greater culpability.

4. The applicable Level 3 starting point was three years’ custody, within a range of two to five years. The sentencing judge was entitled to reduce the sentence for substantial personal mitigation: a lengthy good driving record, attempts to assist the victim, genuine remorse, positive good character and a good work record. He had presided over the trial, carefully addressed the guideline, and was well placed to assess culpability.

5. The sentence remained immediate custody. The court held that the mitigating factors could properly justify a two-year term and left that sentence in place.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave but held that the sentence was not unduly lenient and did not interfere.

• Crown Court sitting at Manchester Crown Square: On 22 January 2018, His Honour Judge Field QC imposed two years’ imprisonment following the offender’s conviction after trial for causing death by dangerous driving.