R v David Chorlton

For causing death by dangerous driving, seriousness is assessed cumulatively by considering the driving and the surrounding aggravating circumstances. A relatively short period of driving and speed that is not grossly excessive do not prevent level 1 classification where the driving shows complete disregard for road rules and is aggravated by recent dangerous-driving offending, disqualification, offending on bail and fleeing the scene. Level 1 classification does not dictate a sentence at the top of the range; the sentence must remain proportionate to the particular combination of features. A single indictment count cannot combine distinct offences concerning causing death while uninsured and while disqualified. A defective committal may remain valid where the magistrates had power to commit on the proper statutory basis.

The appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving after driving through Stalybridge at speed, ignoring give-way markings and colliding with another vehicle. The victim was ejected and died. The Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street treated the offence as level 1 under the Definitive Guideline and imposed 10 years' imprisonment, activating a suspended sentence concurrently.

The appeal concerned the seriousness category and sentence, the effect of an existing extended retest requirement, the duplicity of a count combining offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the validity of committals for summary offences under the Sentencing Act 2020.

The appeal against sentence was allowed. The conviction on count 2 was quashed, and the consequential disqualification orders were varied.

1. Seriousness category. The driving, considered in isolation, placed the offence at least in level 2. The deliberate disregard of give-way markings, speed and the presence of other road users demonstrated a complete disregard for the rules of the road and the danger caused. The offence could properly be elevated to level 1 by the cumulative effect of the recent dangerous-driving conviction and disqualification, further offending while disqualified, offending on bail, the absence of seatbelts and fleeing the scene. The absence of a prolonged course of very bad driving or grossly excessive speed did not prevent level 1 classification.
2. Sentence within the range. Level 1 carried a starting point of eight years and a range of seven to 14 years. Although the aggravating features justified a sentence above the starting point, a sentence towards the top of the range was manifestly excessive. Ten years before credit for plea, reduced by 15 per cent to eight and a half years, was appropriate. The principal disqualification was reduced to eight and a half years, with an extended period of four years and three months.
3. Extended retest. Under section 36(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, a judge could not impose an extended retest requirement that already applied to the offender. The sentencing remarks were properly construed as a reminder or restatement. The court applied R v Anderson [2012] EWCA Crim 3060.
4. Duplicity. Count 2 improperly combined the distinct and materially different offences under sections 3 ZB and 3 ZC of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It was obviously duplicitous, so the conviction was quashed. The absence of a separate penalty meant that this did not alter the overall sentence.
5. Committal for sentence. The Magistrates' Court had no jurisdiction to commit the summary offences under section 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020. It did have power under paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 16 because the offences placed the appellant in breach of a suspended sentence imposed by the Crown Court. Applying the principle in R v Ayhan [2011] EWCA Crim 3184, the error in recording the statutory basis did not invalidate the committal where the proper power had in substance been exercised.
6. Earlier summary offences. The combined effect of sections 28(4), 34(2) and 44 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required penalty points or a discretionary disqualification for one of the earlier offences. A six-month disqualification was imposed to run concurrently with the existing disqualification.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, substituted a sentence of eight and a half years' imprisonment, quashed the conviction on count 2 and varied the disqualification orders.
• Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street: On 2 February 2022 imposed 10 years' imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving and activated the suspended sentence concurrently.