R v Mavis Ansere

Whether a custodial sentence should be suspended requires a realistic assessment of the factors pointing both towards immediate custody and towards suspension. A driving disqualification may substantially reduce public risk, but it does not necessarily remove it.

Immediate custody may be required where persistent dangerous driving, involving use of a vehicle as a weapon, is aggravated by a previous serious similar offence, an earlier suspended sentence and poor compliance with its requirements. A claimed prospect of rehabilitation must rest on genuine responsibility, remorse and insight. Minimisation and false accounts undermine it. Prison overcrowding remains relevant, but it does not require suspension where the seriousness of the offending makes immediate custody appropriate.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to dangerous driving and possession of cannabis. The case was committed to the Crown Court at Snaresbrook for sentence.

On 30 July 2024, under case reference [01N11385223], the Recorder imposed nine months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving and disqualified the appellant for three years and four and a half months. The appellant appealed, with leave, on the sole ground that the custodial sentence should have been suspended.

The central issue was whether the Recorder had erred in applying the Imposition Guideline factors, including public protection, punishment, previous compliance, rehabilitation, personal mitigation and the impact of custody on others.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The nine-month sentence was properly immediate. The court also announced in open court the mandatory condition that disqualification continue until the appellant had passed an extended re-test. Its omission from the Recorder’s oral pronouncement did not make the sentence unlawful.

2. The appellant presented a risk to the public when driving, although the lengthy disqualification substantially reduced that risk. Public protection was therefore not a strong, independent reason for immediate custody. It did not follow that there was no risk of driving while disqualified.

3. The gravity of the dangerous driving strongly established that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by custody. Over about five minutes, the appellant persistently pursued the motorcyclist, tried on several occasions to collide with him and used her car as a weapon. She also struck and injured a cyclist. The offence was significantly aggravated by an earlier serious dangerous-driving conviction, for which she had received a suspended sentence, and by her subsequent poor compliance with that order.

4. The factors favouring suspension did not assist the appellant. Her accounts had sought to minimise her conduct and did not demonstrate full responsibility, insight or remorse. Her health conditions provided some, but not strong, personal mitigation and could be managed in custody. The temporary separation from her adult son was not a significant harmful impact on another person. The court took account of prison overcrowding and the guidance in R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 and R v Foster [2023] EWCA Crim 1196, but those matters did not displace the need for immediate imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1226, dismissed the appeal against sentence and pronounced the mandatory extended re-test requirement in open court.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 30 July 2024, under reference [01N11385223], imposed nine months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving and disqualified the appellant for three years and four and a half months.
• Magistrates’ Court: On 19 October 2023, the appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and possession of cannabis. The case was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.