Ravikumar, R v

Where a death-by-dangerous-driving offence is accompanied by offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, the court may treat the death offence as the lead offence and impose concurrent sentences. The lead sentence must nevertheless reflect the overall criminality.

Powerful personal mitigation, including youth, remorse, good character, delay and an early guilty plea, may justify substantial reduction. It may not justify a downward movement from the applicable guideline starting point where the serious injuries caused to several additional victims outweigh that mitigation. The principle of totality must be observed, but each serious injury remains a material aggravating feature.

Yaashmi Ravikumar, aged 18 at the time, failed to observe give-way warnings at a crossroads and collided with a bus. A further collision caused one death and life-changing injuries to four other people.

She pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and four offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Newport Crown Court imposed a total of 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution, concurrent sentences, and driving disqualification.

On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the question was whether that total sentence was unduly lenient notwithstanding the offender’s exceptional personal mitigation.

1. The court granted leave for the Solicitor General’s reference, quashed the sentences as unduly lenient, and substituted a total sentence of two years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution.

2. The death-by-dangerous-driving offence was properly placed in category 3 of the definitive guideline. The driving created a brief but obvious danger through a seriously dangerous manoeuvre: the failure to observe the give-way signs. There was no definitive guideline for the serious-injury offences.

3. The judge was entitled to select the death offence as the lead offence, increase its sentence to reflect the overall criminality, and impose shorter concurrent sentences for the serious-injury offences. That structure of sentence was not flawed.

4. The offender’s youth, inexperience, good character, remorse, early admissions, adverse delay, and the difficulty of custody during the pandemic were powerful mitigating factors. The court nevertheless held that they were collectively outweighed by the four related offences of causing serious injury. Each was a serious aggravating feature in its own right.

5. Totality required the court to avoid double punishment, but it did not permit the serious injuries to four persons to be left insufficiently reflected. The aggravation required an upward, rather than downward, movement from the guideline starting point. The least proper total before guilty-plea credit was three years and six months; after full credit it was two years and four months.

6. Under section 35 A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the increased custodial term required a corresponding increase in disqualification. The offender was disqualified for three years and two months and until she passed an extended retest.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it, and substituted a total of two years and four months’ detention: [2020] EWCA Crim 1217.

• Crown Court at Newport (Isle of Wight): On 13 July 2020, imposed a total of 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution for causing death by dangerous driving and four offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.