R v Christopher Delarue

In sentencing for causing death by careless driving, the court must place the offence in the appropriate guideline category before selecting the sentence. Where the driving falls between the highest and next category, a starting point associated with the highest category is unjustified. The sentence may nevertheless move upwards within the lower category to reflect factors such as the vulnerability of the road user and the size of the vehicle. Relevant mitigation includes the relationship between the offender and deceased, the deceased’s own contribution, good character and positive references. A custodial sentence at the relevant threshold requires consideration of suspension, but immediate custody may remain appropriate. The driving disqualification and any extension period must be recalculated consistently with the substituted custodial sentence.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Chelmsford of causing death by careless driving after reversing and driving a flatbed truck near his partner, who was struck and fatally injured. He was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 35 months.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offence belonged in a lower guideline category, that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation and delay, and that the disqualification was excessive. The central issues were the correct categorisation of the driving, the appropriate custodial sentence and the resulting period of disqualification.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for the sentence of 28 months and reduced the total driving disqualification from 35 months to 30 months.

2. Having viewed the dash-cam footage, the court found that the appellant knew that the deceased was emotional, erratic and affected by drink or drugs. She was visible in the road, in front of and close to the vehicle. A speed of up to 11 miles per hour was markedly too fast for the manoeuvres. The failure to stop and check her whereabouts and welfare after mounting the kerb placed the driving below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

3. Viewing the evidence in the round, the driving fell between categories A and B under the sentencing guidelines. The judge was therefore not justified in adopting two years as the starting point. The deceased’s vulnerability and the use of a large vehicle justified moving upwards within category B.

4. The relationship between the appellant and the deceased provided some mitigation, which had not been wholly recognised. Further mitigation arose from the deceased’s own conduct, the appellant’s essentially good character and positive character references.

5. An 18-month sentence required consideration of suspension. However, on the facts, only immediate custody was appropriate. The appropriate disqualification was 21 months, together with a nine-month extension representing half the custodial sentence, giving a total of 30 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1612, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The custodial sentence and driving disqualification were reduced.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: The appellant was convicted on 22 July 2024 and sentenced on 11 September 2024 to 28 months’ imprisonment, with a 35-month driving disqualification.