R v Harley Whiteman

A sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range that a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. Under the Sentencing Council guideline for causing death by dangerous driving, multiple high-culpability factors require an upward adjustment from the Category A starting point, although the adjustment need not be substantial.

Age is relevant, but chronological age is less important than evidence of maturity. Without evidence of particular immaturity, age will not justify reducing sentence below the guideline starting point where aggravating factors are not outweighed. On an Attorney General’s reference, the Court of Appeal may quash an unduly lenient sentence and substitute the appropriate sentence.

After pleading guilty at the Crown Court at Cardiff to causing death by dangerous driving and failing to provide a specimen, the offender was sentenced to six years and nine months’ detention for the causing-death offence, with a concurrent sentence for the specimen offence.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that it was unduly lenient. The central issue was whether a sentence of nine years before credit for the guilty plea was reasonably available in light of Category A culpability, multiple high-culpability factors, aggravating and mitigating features, and the offender’s age and maturity.

Reference allowed. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was unduly lenient, quashed the sentence imposed by the Crown Court, and substituted nine years’ detention in a young offender institution.

1. The court applied the formulation in Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 1989, [1990] 1 WLR 41. A sentence is unduly lenient where it falls outside the range that a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.
2. The offender’s culpability properly fell within Category A under the guideline. The judge had identified four high-culpability factors, including prolonged and persistent dangerous driving while highly impaired by drink and cocaine, excessive speed, and disregard of road conditions. The Court of Appeal held that the 12-year starting point should have been increased by two years to reflect the multiple high-culpability factors. The Category A range was eight to 18 years.
3. Age was a relevant mitigating consideration, but chronological age was less important than maturity. There was no evidence that the offender was particularly immature. His age therefore could not justify reducing the sentence below the guideline starting point, particularly when the aggravating and mitigating factors were balanced.
4. The least sentence reasonably available after trial was 12 years. Applying the 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea produced nine years’ detention. The court exercised its discretion to quash and substitute that sentence.
5. Under section 35 A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the extension period for driving disqualification was increased to six years, producing a total disqualification of 11 years for causing death by dangerous driving. For failing to provide a specimen, the court substituted 12 months’ disqualification with a six-year extension period. Under section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, 23 of the 46 qualifying curfew days counted as time served.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2024] EWCA Crim 949: on a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it, and substituted nine years’ detention.
2. Crown Court at Cardiff: following guilty pleas, imposed six years and nine months’ detention for causing death by dangerous driving, with a concurrent sentence for failing to provide a specimen.