R v Joshua Gregory

A sentence may be unduly lenient even where the sentencing judge identifies the correct guideline category and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentence must adequately reflect the combined effect of multiple high-culpability features and other aggravating circumstances. Genuine mitigation remains relevant and should be credited separately. A guilty-plea reduction is applied after the appropriate sentence has been assessed. The statutory extension period for driving disqualification must then be recalculated by reference to the substituted custodial sentence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The offender pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving after taking a vehicle without consent, driving while affected by alcohol, evading police at high speed and striking a pedestrian who died instantly. He also faced charges concerning failure to stop, failure to provide a specimen and driving while uninsured.

On 28 March 2024, the sentencing judge treated the offence as category A under the applicable guideline, adopted a 12-year starting point, allowed an uplift of 18 months for aggravating features, and then allowed a reduction for mental health conditions and genuine remorse. After 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea, the sentence was nine years' imprisonment. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that it was unduly lenient.

The Attorney General's reference was allowed in part. The sentence of nine years' imprisonment was increased to ten years and ten months. The driving-disqualification extension period was increased from six years to 2,639 days. Formal verdicts of not guilty were entered on the failure-to-provide-a-specimen and failure-to-stop charges, and the endorsement relating to the uninsured-driving charge was declared a nullity.

1. Guideline assessment. The sentencing judge correctly identified the applicable category, the 12-year starting point, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The offence involved multiple category A culpability factors, including deliberate and prolonged dangerous driving, impairment by alcohol, attempts to evade the police, substantially excessive speed and dangerous manoeuvres. It also involved further aggravating features, including the victim's vulnerability as a pedestrian, the previous conviction, failure to stop and blame wrongly placed on others.
2. Undue leniency. Increasing the starting point from 12 years to 13½ years did not adequately reflect the multiplicity and seriousness of those factors. The lowest increase reasonably available was to 16 years' imprisonment.
3. Mitigation and guilty plea. The court rejected the submission that mitigation had been overstated. It allowed the sentencing judge's reduction of 1½ years for the offender's mental health conditions and genuine remorse. This produced a sentence of 14½ years before applying the 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in ten years and ten months.
4. Disqualification. Under section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the extension period was recalculated as two thirds of the substituted custodial sentence. The resulting period was seven years and two months, expressed precisely as 2,639 days.
5. Ancillary charges. The Crown offered no evidence on the failure-to-provide-a-specimen and failure-to-stop charges, so formal verdicts of not guilty were entered. The uninsured-driving charge had been mistakenly treated as summary, but was an alternative to the principal count; its separate licence endorsement was therefore a nullity.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and allowed the reference in part, increasing the custodial sentence and adjusting the driving-disqualification extension period.
2. Sentencing court: on 28 March 2024, imposed nine years' imprisonment, with a seven-and-a-half-year driving disqualification and a six-year extension period.