Diamond, R.

Sentencing Guideline categories are not rigid tramlines. A sentencing judge may stand back and assess the overall seriousness of dangerous driving, including multiple foreseeable passenger deaths and serious injury, when selecting a starting point within the applicable category. A concurrent sentence for serious injury may justify a higher starting point on counts of causing death by dangerous driving, provided the court avoids double counting and gives proper weight to mitigation.

When a driving disqualification includes an extension under Road Traffic Act 1988, the court should specify separately the discretionary disqualification and the statutory extension.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Maidstone to three counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. After drinking alcohol, he drove his car above the speed limit, lost control on a bend, and crashed. Three passengers died and a fourth, aged 13, was seriously injured.

He received concurrent sentences of seven and a half years’ imprisonment for the fatal offences, three years for the injury offence, and a seven-year driving disqualification. He appealed against sentence, alleging an excessive starting point, double counting, and insufficient mitigation. The court also considered whether the disqualification had been structured correctly.

1. The appeal against the custodial sentence was dismissed. The sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The judge was entitled to treat the offending as category 1 under the Definitive Guideline on causing death by driving. Guideline categories must not be approached as rigid tramlines. The judge could assess the overall seriousness after identifying the category.

3. The three deaths, including that of a 16-year-old, were aggravating circumstances. The appellant knew that the victims were passengers in his vehicle and could anticipate the risk of their deaths. Driving at excessive speed while over the drink-drive limit was also an important aggravating feature. On the facts, this did not amount to impermissible double counting.

4. The judge could select a significantly higher starting point on the death-by-dangerous-driving counts to reflect the grave injuries inflicted on the surviving child, notwithstanding the concurrent sentence for causing serious injury. This accorded with Attorney General's Reference (R v Morrison) [2018] EWCA Crim 981. The judge had also fully considered the slow puncture, remorse, good character, good driving record, and the appellant’s friendship with those killed.

5. The court restructured, but did not alter, the seven-year disqualification. Applying R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455 and section 35A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it specified a discretionary period of three years and three months and an extension period of three years and nine months. The extended driving-test requirement remained.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the custodial sentence was dismissed. The court restructured the driving disqualification while preserving its total duration.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment, with a seven-year driving disqualification.