Chudasama v R.

Where several deaths result from a single act of dangerous driving, the sentences for the deaths must be concurrent. Multiple deaths substantially aggravate harm and may justify a sentence at the statutory maximum, but consecutive terms cannot be used to exceed that maximum in substance. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate for a distinct offence committed at the same time, such as driving whilst disqualified.

The statutory maximum is available where the offence is sufficiently serious. It is not reserved for a hypothetical worse case. A one-third guilty-plea reduction is ordinarily available only where guilt is indicated at the first stage of proceedings. A later plea attracts a lesser reduction unless particular circumstances made an earlier indication unreasonable.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to three counts of causing death by dangerous driving. After driving while heavily intoxicated and at excessive speed, he lost control of a vehicle and killed three teenage pedestrians. Her Honour Judge Joseph QC imposed concurrent terms of 13 years' imprisonment after calculating a notional total based on consecutive sentences for the three deaths.

On appeal, the applicant contended that consecutive sentencing was impermissible because all deaths resulted from one course of driving. The Crown accepted that later authority precluded consecutive terms, but submitted that the guilty-plea reduction should be one quarter rather than one third.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge erred by using consecutive sentences to calculate the sentence for three deaths caused by one act of dangerous driving. Although the deaths greatly aggravated harm, concurrent terms were required. To calculate the sentence otherwise would subvert the 14-year statutory maximum prescribed by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

2. The totality guideline states that concurrent sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where offences arise from the same incident. Its specific example is dangerous driving causing injury to multiple victims. The court followed R v Noble and Attorney General's Reference (No 57 of 2009) R v Ralphs, and applied Attorney General's Reference (R v Brown) [2018] EWCA Crim 1775. A consecutive sentence may remain available for an offence committed at the same time but distinct from the driving causing death, such as driving whilst disqualified.

3. The court explained that the observation in R v Mannan about possible consecutive sentences for several victims was not part of that decision's ratio. Properly understood, it was consistent with the established concurrent-sentence principle.

4. The maximum sentence need not be reserved for a notional exceptional case. The seriousness of this offending, including the number of deaths and the aggravating features of the driving, justified a 14-year starting point before credit for plea.

5. A one-third reduction was unavailable because the applicant had indicated not guilty pleas at the first stage of proceedings. He knew the essential facts and had received legal advice. No particular circumstance made an earlier guilty plea unreasonable. A one-quarter reduction produced concurrent sentences of 10½ years on each count. The disqualification was reduced to 12 years and three months under section 35A; the extended-test requirement and victim surcharge remained.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted and the sentence was varied. Concurrent terms of 10½ years replaced the concurrent 13-year terms.
• Central Criminal Court: Her Honour Judge Joseph QC accepted guilty pleas to three counts of causing death by dangerous driving and imposed 13 years' imprisonment on each count concurrently.