Evans, R v

In sentencing for causing death by careless driving, a court may place an offence in the middle culpability category where a driver of a large commercial vehicle makes an unsafe turn across the path of a plainly visible road user. A custodial term is not necessarily immediate. The sentencing court should address the relevant suspension factors and give adequate reasons for rejecting suspension.

An extended driving re-test requires a justification connected to public safety. A post-sentence increase in disqualification cannot be made administratively: the applicable procedural rules require an open-court process with notice to the offender.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Gloucester to causing death by careless driving. While driving a tipper lorry, he turned early across the path of an oncoming motorcycle in order to enter a petrol station through its exit. The motorcyclist died at the scene.

The Recorder imposed seven months’ imprisonment, two years’ disqualification, and an extended re-test requirement. The appellant challenged the culpability category, the length and immediate operation of custody, and the ancillary driving orders. The central issues were whether the custodial term was manifestly excessive, whether it should be suspended, and whether the re-test and purported administrative amendment to disqualification were lawful or justified.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the assessment of the offence as falling within the middle culpability category. The appellant failed to see a clearly visible motorcycle while making a deliberately early turn across the carriageway in a large vehicle. The seven-month term was not manifestly excessive.
2. The Recorder gave inadequate reasons for refusing suspension. The applicable guideline factors showed no risk of harm to the public and no history of non-compliance. The appellant had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation, genuine remorse, an exemplary character, and a previously blameless driving record. Immediate custody was therefore unnecessary. The seven-month term was suspended for 12 months, with no additional community order because the appellant had already served 44 days in custody.
3. The two-year disqualification was not manifestly excessive. Applying R v Geale [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 17, disqualification principally protects the public but also has a punitive element. Its length must be assessed with the sentence and ancillary orders as a whole.
4. The extended re-test was quashed. Under R v Tombs [2019] EWCA Crim 1100, it required a safety-based justification. None was identified, and the court could find none.
5. As material guidance, the court held that the Recorder’s later administrative increase of the disqualification was ineffective. Section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1968 and Criminal Procedure Rule 28.4 required any increase to be addressed in open court with notice to the appellant. The interim disqualification was automatically deductible. Since the custodial sentence was suspended, the two-year disqualification pronounced in open court could stand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted seven months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months; retained a two-year disqualification but removed the extended re-test requirement: [2019] EWCA Crim 2358.
• Crown Court at Gloucester: following a guilty plea to causing death by careless driving, imposed seven months’ immediate imprisonment, two years’ disqualification, and an extended re-test requirement.