R v Kyle Hodson

For dangerous driving, a finding of Category 1 harm may be justified by property damage caused during the offending, even where the damage is limited. The sentencing court must give proper effect to personal mitigation when fixing the notional sentence after trial, before applying credit for a guilty plea.

The decision whether to suspend an otherwise appropriate custodial sentence remains an evaluative exercise. The factors favouring and militating against suspension must be weighed qualitatively; they are not to be decided by numerical comparison. Immediate custody may properly remain necessary where the driving is exceptionally serious.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and associated motoring, criminal-damage and cannabis offences. At Sheffield Crown Court, he received 12 months’ immediate imprisonment for dangerous driving, following an 18-month starting point for a Category 1A offence and full credit for his guilty plea. He was disqualified for 18 months and required to pass an extended retest.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the offence should not have been categorised as Category 1A, that personal mitigation had received no credit, and that the sentence should have been suspended. The central issues were the proper custodial term and whether immediate custody was justified.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 12-month sentence and substituted 10 months’ imprisonment. It also reduced the driving disqualification from 18 months to 17 months. All other orders remained unchanged.

2. The judge was entitled to treat the dangerous driving as a Category 1A offence under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline. The appellant had collided with a parked car while driving on a pavement to evade police. The court could properly infer that property damage had been caused, notwithstanding that it was limited and no evidence of its extent had been produced.

3. The 18-month starting point was therefore correct. However, the judge had identified material mitigation: the appellant had no previous convictions, was essentially of good character, and had significant domestic circumstances. That mitigation required a reduction from the 18-month starting point before the one-third reduction for the early guilty plea. The proper sentence after trial was 15 months, producing 10 months after plea credit.

4. The judge was nevertheless entitled to refuse suspension. Although it is best practice to address the relevant guideline factors individually, the judge had them in mind. The guideline requires their evaluative weighing and does not permit a numerical comparison of factors for and against suspension. Given the prolonged and exceptionally dangerous driving, the court could not say that the judge had wrongly concluded that only immediate custody was justified.

5. The original disqualification comprised the mandatory 12 months plus a six-month uplift, calculated as half the custodial term. Since the substituted term was 10 months, the uplift became five months and the total disqualification 17 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 10 months’ imprisonment and a 17-month disqualification.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 22 September 2023, imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment for dangerous driving and an 18-month driving disqualification with an extended retest requirement.