R v Jean Dias

In assessing culpability under a sentencing guideline, whether driving constituted an obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre is not determined by a wholly subjective inquiry. The court must make an objective appraisal, while also assessing questions of degree. A sentencing judge may place offending on the cusp between culpability categories where the evidence supports that assessment. Strong personal mitigation must be balanced against the gravity of the driving and the injuries caused. A custodial sentence is not necessarily suitable for suspension merely because it falls within the statutory threshold for consideration of suspension.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court for causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He had driven on the wrong side of a single-carriageway road for a significant distance before colliding with an oncoming van. The van driver suffered life-changing injuries and the passenger was also injured.

The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had assessed the guideline factor of an obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre subjectively, failed to give proper weight to personal mitigation, and should have imposed a suspended sentence. The central issues were the correct approach to culpability under the guideline, the adequacy of the sentence, and whether suspension would have been appropriate.

1. Application refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that driving on the wrong side of the road for a significant distance, following the contours of the road and ignoring clear markings, amounted for guideline purposes to an obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre.
2. The relevant guideline factor was not to be approached entirely subjectively. Its wording and context required an objective appraisal, together with an assessment of questions of degree. The absence of evidence that the applicant had driven deliberately or recklessly did not prevent that finding.
3. The judge’s assessment that the offending lay on the cusp between culpability categories A and B was a proper appraisal. Category 1A carried a starting point of four years and a range of three to five years; category 1B carried a starting point of three years and a range of two to four years. The sentence before credit for the early guilty plea could be deduced to have been three years and six months, within the category 1B range.
4. The court found no error in the assessment of mitigation. The applicant’s good character, references, remorse and profound personal and family consequences had to be balanced against the gravity of the offending and the serious injuries caused. The resulting sentence of 28 months was not excessive or otherwise unlawful.
5. The court added that suspension would not have been appropriate even if a sentence of two years or less had been available. The gravity of the offending and its consequences meant that the applicant had not missed a suspended sentence merely because the sentence exceeded that threshold.

• Crown Court: HHJ Huseyin imposed 28 months’ imprisonment on 19 April 2024 for causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The applicant was also disqualified from driving for six years under section 34A of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988, and required to pass an extended driving test.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for leave to appeal against sentence was renewed after refusal on the papers by a single judge. The application was refused.