R v Anthony John Campbell

For causing serious injury by dangerous driving, drug-impaired driving of a heavy goods vehicle may fall within, or at the cusp of, culpability Category A where the offender has deliberately disregarded the danger to other road users. Permanent mobility impairment, substantial long-term effects on ordinary activities, and serious psychological consequences may place harm in Category 1.

When considering suspension, the relevant threshold is the final sentence after credit for plea and other reductions, not the guideline starting point. A realistic prospect of rehabilitation does not require suspension where the seriousness of drug-impaired driving and the resulting grave injury mean that appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody.

R v Anthony John Campbell was an appeal against a two-year immediate sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Cambridge on 12 July 2024 for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

While driving a heavy goods vehicle after consuming cannabis, the appellant left the carriageway, overcorrected and collided with an oncoming vehicle. Its passenger sustained serious and lasting physical injuries, with significant effects on mobility and mental health.

The appellant contended that the offence fell within the lowest guideline category and that the sentence should have been suspended. The central issues were the proper culpability and harm categories and whether immediate custody was necessary.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although the sentencing judge's reasoning was unsatisfactory in failing to identify and explain the applicable guideline category, and may have incorrectly treated a starting point exceeding two years as preventing suspension, the Court of Appeal resentenced the appellant and reached the same result.

2. The offending was not merely just over the dangerous-driving threshold. The appellant had almost twice the safe cannabis limit in his blood, carried further cannabis, and drove a large HGV. Those facts demonstrated either Category A culpability, through deliberate disregard of the danger to others and highly impaired driving, or the upper end of Category B. The appropriate starting point lay between A1 and B1, at three years and six months.

3. The victim's permanent impairment of mobility, substantial long-term restriction on normal activities, continuing need for treatment and serious mental-health effects placed harm in Category 1. After allowing mitigation for good character, remorse and references, the starting point was reduced to three years. The one-third credit for an early guilty plea produced a sentence of two years' imprisonment.

4. Suspension was legally available because the relevant question is whether the actual sentence, after credit, is two years or less; the starting point is immaterial. There was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and no history of non-compliance. However, the appellant's willingness to drive an HGV while materially affected by illegal drugs gave rise to concern about public risk. More importantly, immediate custody was the decisive guideline factor: only it could provide appropriate punishment for the grave injuries caused by this drug-impaired driving.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the sentence appeal and upheld the two-year immediate custodial sentence.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 12 July 2024, sentenced the appellant to two years' imprisonment for causing serious injury by dangerous driving contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.