Brown, R. v

Where separate counts of causing death by dangerous driving arise from one incident of dangerous driving, sentences should generally be concurrent. Multiple deaths materially aggravate the sentence for each count, but do not alone justify consecutive sentences. A consecutive sentence may, however, be imposed for a distinct offence committed at the same time, such as driving whilst disqualified.

Where the applicable sentencing range reaches the statutory maximum, that maximum is not reserved for a hypothetical worse case. It may be the proper pre-plea sentence where the driving and aggravating features justify it. A sentence materially below that proper level may be unduly lenient.

The respondent pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Warwick to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of driving whilst disqualified. He drove at about 70 mph in a 30 mph residential area, while affected by cocaine and sedatives, and killed two young children crossing the road. He had an extensive record for motoring offences and had never held a driving licence.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms of nine years’ imprisonment for the two deaths and a concurrent four-month term for driving whilst disqualified. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, principally contending that the deaths required consecutive sentences and, alternatively, that the starting point was too low.

1. The reference succeeded. The concurrent sentences for the two counts arising from the deaths were not unduly lenient merely because they were concurrent. The established principle, confirmed in R v Noble [2002] EWCA Crim 1713, is that consecutive terms should not normally be imposed for offences arising out of one incident of dangerous driving. The number of deaths increases the harm and must aggravate each sentence, but it does not of itself require consecutive sentences.

2. The court rejected the submission that Attorney-General’s Reference (Nos 60, 62 and 63 of 2009) (Appleby) [2009] EWCA Crim 2693 displaced that principle. Appleby concerned involuntary manslaughter and the effect of section 143 and Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It had no wider purpose affecting the settled approach to multiple deaths caused by one episode of dangerous driving. The court also explained that the observation in R v Mannan [2016] EWCA Crim 1082 did not form part of that decision’s ratio and was consistent with the general rule.

3. A consecutive sentence was nevertheless proper for driving whilst disqualified. That was an offence distinct from the dangerous driving causing the deaths, and it was appropriate to mark the deliberate disregard of road traffic law separately.

4. The judge’s pre-plea starting point of 12 years was too low. The guideline’s Level 1 range reaches the statutory maximum of 14 years, and that maximum is available where the offence and aggravating features warrant it; it is not reserved for an imagined exceptional case. The proper pre-plea total was 14 years’ imprisonment: 13 years and six months for the death-driving offences after limited mitigation, plus six months for driving whilst disqualified. A 25% reduction for the guilty pleas produced a total of 10 years and six months.

5. The court quashed the original sentences and imposed 10 years and three months’ imprisonment concurrently for the two death-driving counts, plus three months consecutively for driving whilst disqualified. It adjusted the driving disqualification accordingly.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it, and resentenced the respondent to a total of 10 years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Warwick — The respondent pleaded guilty and received concurrent terms of nine years’ imprisonment for the two death-driving counts and four months for driving whilst disqualified.