Mohammed, R. v

A defendant who pleads guilty at the plea and directions hearing should receive the reduction prescribed by the applicable Sentencing Council guideline. The strength of the prosecution evidence does not justify reducing that credit. When varying a sentence for dangerous driving, the court should also adjust the extension period of a driving disqualification in accordance with applicable appellate guidance. Although Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires an extended re-test following a dangerous-driving conviction, the Court of Appeal cannot add one where that would make the sentence more severe, contrary to Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Worcester to aggravated vehicle taking, dangerous driving, possession of cannabis and driving without insurance. The offences arose from a dangerous police pursuit in a stolen van, during which police vehicles were rammed, officers were injured and substantial damage was caused.

He received a total concurrent sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment and was disqualified from driving for five years and 11 months. He appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentencing judge had wrongly allowed only eight to ten per cent credit for his guilty pleas because the evidence against him was strong.

Disposition

1. The appeal was allowed. The total sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced by 18 months’ imprisonment. The driving disqualification was varied to five years and nine months.

2. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the plea and directions hearing. Under the applicable Sentencing Council guideline, he was entitled to a 25 per cent reduction. The guideline makes the reduction available regardless of the strength of the evidence. The sentencing judge therefore erred by reducing credit because the appellant had been observed by police and recorded on camera.

3. The court followed the guidance in R v Needham and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 455. In light of the reduced custodial sentence, the extension period of the disqualification was reduced from 11 to nine months. The resulting disqualification comprised five years’ discretionary disqualification and a nine-month extension period.

4. Under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, an extended re-test should have been ordered following the dangerous-driving conviction. The Crown Court had omitted it. However, section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevented the Court of Appeal from imposing an order which would make the sentence more severe. No re-test was imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting 18 months’ imprisonment and varying the driving disqualification.

• Crown Court at Worcester On 17 June 2019, imposed a total concurrent sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment and a driving disqualification of five years and 11 months following guilty pleas.