R v Jack Kenneth Darren Lomas

For causing death by dangerous driving, the highest sentencing category and a sentence close to the statutory maximum may be justified by exceptionally grave driving, even though more serious circumstances can be imagined. The top of the applicable sentencing range is not confined to wholly exceptional cases.

Where death and injury offences arise from one driving incident, consecutive sentences should not be imposed merely because there is more than one victim. Serious injury to another victim may nevertheless aggravate the sentence for the principal death offence. A subsequent change to release provisions is not a relevant factor in fixing sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Minshull Street in Manchester to causing the death of an 86-year-old man by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving to a passenger. After drinking alcohol, he drove an overloaded car at high speed on a residential road, ignored frightened passengers' requests to slow down, and collided with the deceased's vehicle.

He received nine years' imprisonment for the death offence, with a concurrent sentence of two years and eight months for the injury offence. He appealed against sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the subsequent change requiring him to serve two-thirds, rather than one-half, of his sentence should be reflected in the term imposed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offence in the highest culpability category. The appellant drove while over the alcohol limit, at greatly excessive speed, for show, while deliberately swerving and ignoring the warnings of terrified passengers. The death, the serious injury to a passenger, and lesser injuries to others justified a substantial increase from the eight-year starting point.

2. A sentence of 13 years and six months after a trial would have been severe, but was within the judge's discretion for this very grave offence. A sentence at or near the maximum is not reserved for cases that are wholly exceptional. The court applied the approach illustrated by R v Robert Brown [2018] EWCA Crim 1775, [2018] 4 WLR 152: an offence may warrant the maximum or a near-maximum sentence although still graver circumstances are conceivable.

3. The judge had not imposed consecutive sentences for the death and injury offences. She had imposed concurrent sentences and treated the serious injury to the passenger as an aggravating feature of the principal offence. That was the correct approach where the offences arose from one incident, and the overall sentence after a trial did not exceed the then statutory maximum.

4. The judge had properly allowed for the appellant's limited mitigation, including remorse, remaining at the scene, increased maturity during delay, and the earliest guilty plea. The later change to release provisions did not justify reducing the term; it was not a relevant sentencing factor. Although that change meant a longer disqualification extension would have been appropriate, the court had no power to increase it while dismissing the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court at Minshull Street in Manchester — on 8 June 2023, imposed nine years' imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving and a concurrent sentence of two years and eight months for causing serious injury by dangerous driving.