R v Dylan John Wood

On an appeal against sentence for driving whilst disqualified, the court must apply the relevant guideline category and reflect statutory aggravation without placing the offence in a more serious category than the facts justify. The disqualification methodology requires the court to determine the discretionary period, add any unexpired current disqualification, and then account for immediate custody under sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. After reducing the custodial sentence, the appellate court may correct the disqualification upwards under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 where that does not contravene the statutory restriction and is consistent with the sentencing judge’s clear intention.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to driving whilst disqualified, possessing an offensive weapon and affray. The driving offence occurred while a two-year totting disqualification was in force, and he had previous convictions for driving whilst disqualified. On 23 November 2023, His Honour Judge Khokar imposed four months’ imprisonment for the driving offence, consecutive to 16 months for affray, with a concurrent sentence for possessing the weapon. An 18-month disqualification was recorded.

Permission was granted only to challenge the sentence for the driving offence. The central issues were whether four months was manifestly excessive and how the custodial sentence affected the appropriate period of disqualification.

Appeal allowed in part.

1. The driving offending fell within Category 3 of the applicable guideline. The appellant’s previous convictions for driving whilst disqualified were a significant aggravating feature. The custody threshold was crossed, and the aggravation could have raised the case to Category 2. The facts did not justify Category 1. The four-month sentence therefore exceeded the appropriate range and did not give effect to the sentencing judge’s stated aim of imposing the shortest possible sentence.
2. Taking account of the guilty pleas and totality, the appropriate sentence for count 1 was two months’ imprisonment. The four-month sentence was quashed and the total sentence reduced from 20 to 18 months.
3. The court applied the three-step methodology explained in Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, [2016] 1 WLR 4449: determine the discretionary disqualification under the guideline; add any unexpired current disqualification; and, where immediate custody is imposed, account for the custodial sentence through the statutory extension and uplift under sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
4. The court concluded that substituting a longer disqualification after reducing the custodial term did not contravene section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Consistently with Needham, it also took account of the sentencing judge’s clear intention, as shown by his remarks, to include an extension reflecting time spent in custody. The 18-month disqualification was quashed and a 24-month disqualification substituted, comprising 15 months’ discretionary disqualification, a one-month extension under section 35A and an eight-month uplift under section 35B. All other ancillary orders remained.

• Crown Court at Leeds — On 23 November 2023, His Honour Judge Khokar sentenced the appellant to 20 months’ imprisonment and recorded an 18-month driving disqualification.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 472, the court allowed the appeal to the extent explained, substituted two months for the four-month sentence on count 1, reduced the total sentence to 18 months and substituted a 24-month disqualification.