Wilkinson, R. v

In sentencing for dangerous driving, the court must assess the particular features of the offending and the offender. Prolonged high-speed driving which creates an obvious risk to others may justify immediate custody, notwithstanding mitigation and the absence of injury. Driving without a full licence and insurance may materially aggravate the dangerous driving.

A sentence should not be characterised as at the very highest level of seriousness unless it falls within the broad range of offending properly attracting a sentence at or near the statutory maximum. Separate non-nominal fines are inappropriate where the associated driving offences have already aggravated the principal offence. A discretionary driving disqualification must be no longer than necessary and appropriate.

The appellant pleaded guilty in a magistrates’ court to dangerous driving, driving without third-party insurance, and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, contrary to sections 2, 143 and 87 respectively of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He was committed to the Crown Court at Basildon for sentence.

The Recorder imposed ten months’ immediate imprisonment for dangerous driving, disqualified him for four years and five months until he passed an extended driving test, and imposed £100 fines for each of the two associated offences. The appellant appealed his sentence with permission of the single judge.

The appeal raised whether the custodial sentence and disqualification were excessive, and whether the uninsured and unlicensed driving could both aggravate the dangerous driving and attract separate significant fines.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The Court upheld the ten-month immediate custodial sentence for dangerous driving. It quashed and reduced the driving disqualification, and quashed the separate fines for driving uninsured and without a valid licence.

2. The offending was serious. It involved a lengthy police pursuit, very high speeds, dangerous overtaking, driving the wrong way around roundabouts, mounting the pavement, and an obvious risk of injury. Light traffic and the absence of injury did not remove that risk. The lack of a full licence and insurance were serious aggravating features.

3. The Recorder was not justified in describing the driving as being of the very worst kind, because it did not fall within the broad band of most serious offending which would justify a sentence at or near the two-year maximum. That misdescription did not make the actual pre-plea sentence of 15 months, or the resulting ten-month sentence, manifestly excessive. Immediate custody was justified because appropriate punishment could only be achieved by custody.

4. The two earlier dangerous-driving sentence decisions were fact specific and their factual differences made detailed comparison unhelpful. The proper focus was the particular aggravating and mitigating features of this case.

5. The discretionary disqualification was longer than necessary and appropriate, given the appellant’s age, absence of previous motoring convictions, work history, and the requirement to pass an extended driving test. The Court substituted a two-year discretionary disqualification, extended by five months under section 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

6. The absence of insurance and a full licence had already aggravated the dangerous driving. Imposing more than nominal separate fines for those offences was therefore inappropriate. No separate penalty was imposed, apart from endorsement of the licence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent in [2019] EWCA Crim 258. The custodial sentence was upheld; the disqualification and fines were varied.
• Crown Court at Basildon: On 22 November 2018, imposed ten months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving, a four-year-and-five-month disqualification, and £100 fines for each associated driving offence.
• Magistrates’ court: On 4 October 2018, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.