Waldron, R v

When deciding whether to suspend a custodial term, the court must weigh the factors against suspension against those favouring it. Immediate custody is not justified merely because an offence passes the custody threshold. The court must assess the public risk, whether punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody, compliance history, rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation, and the harmful effect of imprisonment on others.

A material misunderstanding of the seriousness of dangerous driving requires the sentence to be reassessed on the true facts. Serious driving may warrant a custodial term, while the balance of the suspension factors may still justify suspending it.

The appellant pleaded guilty before Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to dangerous driving, driving without a licence, using a vehicle without insurance, and a Bail Act offence. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

At Birmingham Crown Court, he received ten months’ immediate imprisonment for dangerous driving, with a concurrent fourteen-day term for the Bail Act offence. He was disqualified from driving for two years and five months and required to take an extended re-test.

He appealed against sentence. The central issues were whether the judge had materially overstated the dangerous driving by treating it as travel on the wrong side of a dual carriageway, and whether the custodial term should be reduced and suspended.

1. The appeal was allowed. The sentencing judge had acted under a material misapprehension. The appellant had driven on the wrong side of a road, rather than on the wrong side of a dual carriageway. Both were dangerous, but the latter description materially overstated the seriousness of the driving.

2. The actual driving remained sufficiently serious to cross the custody threshold. It involved speeding at about 50 mph in 30 mph roads, overtaking vehicles, failing to indicate, driving on the wrong side of the road, and ultimately colliding with street furniture. A custodial term was therefore warranted. Taking account of the corrected factual basis, however, the appropriate term was six months rather than ten.

3. The court applied the double assessment in the Sentencing Council Guidelines on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences. None of the factors against suspension compelled immediate custody. The assessed public risk was medium and potentially reducible, and appropriate punishment could be achieved otherwise than by immediate imprisonment.

4. The factors favouring suspension all carried weight. The reports identified a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation. Immediate custody also risked harmful consequences for the appellant’s relationship with his children. The six-month term was therefore suspended for twelve months, with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of up to twenty days.

5. The driving disqualification was reduced from two years and five months to two years. The extended driving test requirement remained.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the sentence appeal: [2019] EWCA Crim 2102.
• Crown Court at Birmingham. On 8 August 2019, imposed ten months’ immediate imprisonment for dangerous driving, a concurrent fourteen-day term for the Bail Act offence, and a driving disqualification of two years and five months.
• Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. On 6 June 2019, accepted guilty pleas and committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.