Calvin James Grant v R

Where a court imposes a driving disqualification and custody for the same offence, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 section 35A requires an extension period. Where custody for another offence is also imposed, section 35B requires the court to consider, where appropriate, the diminished punitive effect of disqualification during detention.

A court may take significant time spent on remand into account by reducing the discretionary period of disqualification. It should adopt a broad-brush approach where there was no interim disqualification and the unadjusted period would be disproportionate. The reduction must not take the discretionary period below any statutory minimum.

The appellant received concurrent custodial sentences at Derby Crown Court, including 12 months for dangerous driving and five years and 10 months for possession of a prohibited weapon. The court imposed a driving disqualification of three years and 11 months, comprising a 12-month period and an uplift of two years and 11 months, with an extended re-test.

Having been released from custody, the appellant sought to challenge the disqualification out of time. The Court of Appeal granted a 636-day extension. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge could reflect the appellant’s significant time on remand when fixing a mandatory driving disqualification alongside custody for both the driving offence and a separate offence.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentencing judge and counsel had proceeded on an erroneous basis in treating the disqualification as incapable of adjustment for time spent on remand.

2. Dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 required disqualification under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and an extended re-test. The 12-month custodial sentence for that offence engaged section 35A. The separate and longer custodial sentence for the weapons offence also engaged section 35B.

3. Applying R v Needham & Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 455, the court held that the discretionary period may be adjusted to reflect a significant remand period. The adjustment is available where there was no interim disqualification, the unadjusted result would be disproportionate, and the statutory minimum is preserved. It is a broad-brush assessment rather than a precise arithmetical exercise.

4. Here, the disqualification would otherwise have extended disproportionately beyond release. The court substituted a total disqualification of two years: 12 months’ discretionary disqualification, a six-month section 35A extension, and a six-month section 35B uplift. The extended re-test and the remaining sentences were unchanged. The victim surcharge was administratively reduced from £181 to £170.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 1414, the court granted an extension of time and allowed the appeal. It substituted a two-year driving disqualification for the three-year-and-11-month period imposed below.
• Derby Crown Court: On 15 and 19 October 2021, the court imposed concurrent custodial sentences, a three-year-and-11-month driving disqualification, and an extended re-test.