Downs, R. v

A sentence above the applicable Sentencing Council guideline range requires circumstances that justify departure from that range. A factor already used to place careless driving in the highest culpability category should not be treated again as a separate aggravating feature. Multiple deaths may place offending towards the top of the range, but do not necessarily justify a sentence beyond it. A substantial driving disqualification may be warranted where an offender knowingly drives with impaired eyesight, but it must remain proportionate. The statutory extension to disqualification must be calculated by reference to the custodial term imposed.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Lewes on 21 February 2019 of two counts of causing death by careless driving arising from one collision. She had driven on an unlit country lane at 40 to 50 miles per hour despite knowing that medication, fatigue and impaired eyesight made it unsafe for her to drive.

The judge imposed concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment, disqualified her for five and a half years, and required an extended re-test. The appellant challenged the length of the custodial sentences and disqualification, and raised the possibility of a suspended sentence.

The central issues were whether the sentences, which exceeded the applicable guideline range, and the discretionary period of disqualification were manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment and substituted concurrent sentences of two and a half years. It also replaced the disqualification with one of four years and three months, comprising a discretionary period of three years and a statutory extension of 15 months. The extended re-test requirement remained.

2. The offending properly fell within the highest guideline category because the appellant knowingly drove while her eyesight was impaired. However, the judge had effectively treated the resulting speed as a further aggravating feature, although the impaired eyesight was already the feature placing the offending in that category. The two deaths properly placed the offending towards the upper end of the range, but did not take it outside the range. The mitigating circumstances, including good character and the effect of custody on the appellant’s children, also required proper credit. The sentences were therefore manifestly excessive.

3. The court rejected the suggested mitigation based on the conduct of the deceased pedestrians. Their conduct did not contribute to the commission of the offence. Concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences remained correct in principle, consistently with R v Brown [2018] 4 WLR 152.

4. Under Road Traffic Act 1988, section 35 A(4)(h), the extension period was one half of the custodial sentence. Reducing the custodial term reduced that extension from 21 months to 15 months. A substantial discretionary disqualification was justified by the appellant’s conscious decision to drive despite impaired eyesight, but four years was excessive; three years was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2019] EWCA Crim 1654, the court allowed the appeal and reduced both the custodial sentences and the period of disqualification.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 21 February 2019, the appellant was convicted of two counts of causing death by careless driving and received concurrent sentences of three and a half years’ imprisonment, with disqualification for five and a half years and an extended re-test requirement.