R v Nathan Schultz

Where a renewed application for permission to appeal sentence advances reasonably arguable grounds, permission may be granted. In a case involving a fatality, the court must consider an adjournment after granting permission, in accordance with paragraph 10.2.7 of the Criminal Procedure Directions 2023. An adjournment may enable the prosecution to instruct an advocate and give the victim’s family an opportunity to attend. Granting permission does not express a view on the merits or likely outcome of the substantive sentence appeal.

R v Nathan Schultz concerned a renewed application for permission to appeal both conviction and sentence after the appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Chester of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction in an ex tempore judgment. It reserved judgment on the application concerning sentence and required the parties to assemble the evidence, including video evidence, relevant to the quality of the appellant’s driving before and at the fatal accident.

The court then considered whether permission to appeal sentence should be granted and the immediate procedural consequences of granting permission in a fatality case.

1. The court granted permission to appeal against sentence. The proposed submissions were reasonably arguable.

2. It did not determine the substantive sentence appeal. A substantial part of the argument concerned whether the sentencing judge had been entitled to describe the appellant’s driving as showing a flagrant disregard for the rules of the road, and thereby place the case in Level 1. That issue was left for the full appeal.

3. Paragraph 10.2.7 of the Criminal Procedure Directions 2023 required the court to consider an adjournment where permission to appeal sentence is granted in a case involving a fatality. The court therefore adjourned the appeal so that the CPS could instruct an advocate and the victim’s family could have the opportunity to attend.

4. The direction to assemble the evidence concerning the quality of the appellant’s driving remained in force, so that the full court would have accessible and comprehensive evidence relevant to the driving before and at the accident. The appeal was not reserved to this constitution of the court. A representation order for junior counsel was granted. The court expressed no view on the merits or likely outcome of the sentence appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted permission to appeal against sentence and adjourned the substantive appeal. The renewed application for permission to appeal conviction had been dismissed in an ex tempore judgment.

• Crown Court at Chester: The appellant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced by HHJ Leeming to ten years’ imprisonment.