R v Anton Hull

A sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably regard as appropriate. Under the sentencing guideline for causing death by dangerous driving, the court must first select the correct culpability category. Where several serious Culpability A factors are present, their combination may require an upward adjustment within the category range before aggravation and mitigation are considered.

An offender who positively advances a false account blaming the victim may engage the aggravating factor of wrongly placing blame on others. This differs from exercising the right to silence. Injuries caused by the offender’s own criminality carry mitigating weight only where clear evidence shows that they will substantially worsen the experience of imprisonment.

Anton Hull pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Taunton to causing Sarah Baker’s death by dangerous driving. He drove a van while seriously impaired by alcohol, despite repeated warnings not to drive, used his mobile telephone during the journey, and crossed into the path of the victim’s car. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for nine years.

The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the judge had been entitled to reduce the sentence below the 12-year starting point for Culpability A, and then to give a substantial further reduction for mitigation and guilty plea.

1. The reference was allowed. Applying the established test in Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41, the six-year sentence fell outside the reasonable range available to the sentencing judge.
2. The offender’s conduct fell unequivocally within Culpability A under the applicable Sentencing Council guideline. His driving was highly impaired by drink, he deliberately ignored persistent warnings, and his repeated recording and posting of videos while driving was prolonged mobile-phone use. The combination of those factors required an upward adjustment from the 12-year starting point. A pre-mitigation sentence of 14 years was appropriate; the judge’s adoption of 10 years was a clear error.
3. The offender’s prepared police statement went beyond a refusal to assist the investigation. It falsely attributed responsibility for the collision to the victim. It therefore engaged the guideline aggravating factor of wrongly placing blame on others.
4. Remorse could be recognised, but not given significant weight on the material available. Injuries resulting wholly from the offender’s criminal conduct could mitigate only if clear evidence showed substantial difficulties in serving imprisonment; that evidence was lacking. Youth and immaturity remained relevant, although their force was reduced by the deliberate decision to drive despite repeated warnings.
5. A reduction from 14 years to 12 years and six months sufficiently reflected the available mitigation. After the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, the appropriate sentence was nine years and three months. The court quashed the six-year term and substituted that sentence. The discretionary six-year driving disqualification remained, while the extension period was increased to six years and two months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, allowed the reference, quashed the six-year sentence, and substituted nine years and three months’ imprisonment: [2024] EWCA Crim 195.
• Crown Court at Taunton — sentenced the offender on 17 November 2023, following a guilty plea to causing death by dangerous driving, to six years’ imprisonment and a nine-year driving disqualification.