REX v ROOPA KUMAR

The suspension of a custodial sentence is a judgment based on the relative weight of all relevant guideline factors. Strong personal mitigation, rehabilitation prospects, low reoffending risk and family impact may favour suspension. They may nevertheless be outweighed where the seriousness of dangerous driving means that immediate custody is required for appropriate punishment.

In assessing dangerous driving causing serious injury, the causing-death guideline may assist. Extreme speed in a busy built-up area, particularly when approaching traffic lights, can create a substantial risk of danger. Life-changing injuries are a significant aggravating feature.

The appellant pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving. At Wolverhampton Crown Court, she received 18 months’ immediate imprisonment and a 28-month driving disqualification, with a nine-month extension period.

She had driven at 64 mph in a 30 mph limit on a busy road in darkness, braking to about 35 mph before striking a pedestrian. The pedestrian sustained multiple life-changing injuries. The judge treated the driving as Level 2 culpability by reference to the causing-death-by-dangerous-driving guideline.

The appeal challenged the length and starting point of the sentence and, principally, the refusal to suspend it. The central issue was whether immediate custody was necessary despite the appellant’s substantial mitigation and rehabilitation prospects.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 18-month immediate custodial sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor based on an excessive starting point. Permission to renew the challenge on those grounds was refused.

2. The court agreed that the causing-death-by-dangerous-driving guideline was of assistance in assessing culpability. Driving at 64 mph in a 30 mph limit through a congested, built-up area while approaching traffic lights created a substantial risk of danger. The appellant’s attempt to pass the lights while they remained green was inherently risky. The conduct was therefore properly assessed as Level 2 rather than as merely significant culpability.

3. The complainant’s injuries were life-changing and could have resulted in death. Their multiple, permanent, physical and psychological effects were properly treated as aggravating. For offending of this seriousness, a starting point of between two and two-and-a-half years’ custody was to be anticipated. A notional post-trial sentence of 22 months was not open to criticism, and the 18 per cent reduction for the guilty plea was unchallenged.

4. Whether to suspend the sentence required an overall judgment on the relative weight of the guideline factors. The appellant’s good character, nursing career, remorse, low risk of reoffending, rehabilitation prospects, family circumstances and positive conduct in prison all favoured suspension. The judge was also entitled to consider the identified risk to the public arising from poor prediction of risk and a willingness to ignore legal obligations.

5. The decisive consideration was that immediate custody was necessary to achieve appropriate punishment for the seriousness of the offence. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that this factor outweighed those favouring suspension. The court could not fault that conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against immediate custody and refused permission to renew the challenge to the sentence length and starting point.

• Wolverhampton Crown Court On 27 June 2022, imposed 18 months’ immediate imprisonment for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, together with a driving disqualification.