R v Aaron Scott

When a sentencing judge’s remarks and the administrative record appear inconsistent, the Court of Appeal may examine the remarks as a whole to identify the sentence actually pronounced. A discrepancy need not be resolved in the offender’s favour where the judge’s intention is sufficiently clear and the inconsistency is a slip. In fixing a driving disqualification, the court may impose a lengthy period for repeated and highly dangerous driving, including driving during police pursuits. The period must nevertheless take account of its effect on rehabilitation and must not be disproportionate. An excessive discretionary period may be quashed and replaced with a shorter period, while retaining any proper statutory uplift and extended-test requirement.

The appellant appealed against sentences imposed in the Crown Court at Basildon for six offences, including two offences of dangerous driving, possession of offensive weapons, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and driving without insurance. The sentencing judge did not state the overall sentence or explain its effect as required by section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court record stated an overall term of four years.

The appellant challenged the length of his driving disqualification. The central issues were whether the sentence was four years or 39 months, and whether a 10-year discretionary disqualification, together with a two-year uplift and an extended-test requirement, was excessive.

1. Sentence imposed. Reading the sentencing remarks as a whole, the court was satisfied that the judge intended to impose, and had pronounced, an overall sentence of four years. The reference to a notional six-year sentence before credit for pleas and mitigation, together with the two-year uplift to the discretionary disqualification, supported that conclusion. The inconsistency concerning the sentence for possession of the offensive weapon was a slip of the tongue. The court therefore did not apply the approach requiring a discrepancy between the sentence pronounced and the administrative record to be resolved in the appellant’s favour: (1994) 15 Crim App R (S) 674.
2. Disqualification. A lengthy disqualification was justified. The appellant had committed two dangerous-driving offences during police pursuits, involving sustained and exceptionally dangerous driving, including driving on the wrong side of the carriageway into oncoming traffic. The risk of serious injury was evident, although no one was seriously injured.
3. However, the judge had failed to consider that disqualification should not be so long that it has a disproportionate adverse effect on rehabilitation, as stated in Campbell [2021] EWCA Crim 1962 at paragraph 8. The 10-year discretionary period was manifestly excessive.
4. The disqualification order was quashed and replaced by a six-year period, comprising four years’ discretionary disqualification and a two-year uplift, with disqualification continuing until the appellant passed an extended test. The appeal was allowed to that extent. The overall custodial sentence was left undisturbed.

• Crown Court at Basildon: on 10 August 2022, HHJ Leigh sentenced the appellant for six offences and the court record recorded an overall sentence of four years, together with a 12-year driving disqualification and an extended-test requirement.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the appeal was allowed to the extent that the driving disqualification was quashed and replaced with a six-year period. The overall custodial sentence was not altered.