Dobson, R v

In sentencing for gross-negligence manslaughter caused by dangerous driving, a court may properly bear in mind the maximum sentence and sentencing guideline applicable to causing death by dangerous driving where the facts are comparable. Those materials are not a straitjacket in a motor-manslaughter case. However, a sentence should not be increased well beyond the statutory maximum for causing death by dangerous driving solely because the prosecution charged manslaughter.

An extended sentence remained justified where the offender’s conduct and assessed risk showed an imminent danger of serious harm to the public. The total sentence must nevertheless reflect totality, including any serious concurrent offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to manslaughter and burglary. After committing a planned residential burglary and stealing a high-performance car, he drove at an average speed of 137 to 147 mph while escaping from police. His vehicle collided with a Ford Fiesta, killing its driver.

The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed an extended sentence of 18 years, comprising 15 years’ custody and a three-year extension period. The appellant challenged the custodial length, the dangerousness finding and the 25% credit for his guilty plea.

The central issue was whether the extended sentence and, in particular, its custodial term were excessive for gross-negligence manslaughter arising from dangerous driving.

1. Appeal allowed against sentence. The court quashed the extended sentence of 18 years for manslaughter and substituted an extended sentence of 15 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a three-year extension period.

2. The judge was entitled to find the appellant dangerous and to impose an extended sentence. Although his previous convictions did not include significant violence, the present offending showed a willingness to endanger the public whenever it suited him. The pre-sentence report identified entrenched antisocial and criminal attitudes, escalation in offending and a high imminent risk of serious harm. Those matters supported the judge’s evaluative conclusion.

3. The 20-year total starting point before credit for plea was significantly excessive. This was grave offending, involving extraordinarily dangerous speed on a busy road and a fatality. Yet it was treated as gross-negligence manslaughter. In a comparable motor-manslaughter case, the sentencing framework for causing death by dangerous driving should be borne in mind. It is not a straitjacket, but the sentence should not be raised well above that offence’s 14-year maximum solely because manslaughter was charged.

4. A significant uplift was appropriate for the serious, planned burglary, notwithstanding concurrent sentences. Applying totality, the proper combined starting point before plea credit was 16 years. A 25% reduction for the plea was within the judge’s entitlement.

5. The concurrent 45-month burglary sentence stood. The court ordered a discretionary driving disqualification of three years to begin after the appellant’s release date.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 15-year extended sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 409.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 6 August 2018, imposed an 18-year extended sentence for manslaughter, comprising 15 years’ custody and a three-year extension period, with a concurrent burglary sentence.