R v Daryll Henderson

In sentencing for dangerous driving, drug impairment must be assessed from the whole evidential picture. Toxicology alone does not establish impairment, but evidence of drug consumption, its effects and catastrophic driving may justify culpability category A. The presence of only one category A factor does not require a lower starting point where the case is among the most serious. Multiple deaths and serious injury may justify an uplift within the guideline range, subject to mitigation and totality.

Mandatory driving disqualifications and statutory extensions must be calculated under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Court of Appeal may correct their commencement date and impose an omitted disqualification, provided the appellant is not more severely dealt with overall.

The applicant drove on the M25 after consuming cannabis and cocaine. The car left the carriageway and crashed, causing the deaths of two passengers and serious injury to a third. The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

The charges were initially dealt with unlawfully as committals for sentence, although the serious-injury offence was lawfully committed. The convictions for the death offences were later quashed by the Divisional Court, the charges were sent for trial, and the applicant was re-arraigned and re-sentenced. The appeals concerned whether the 10-year custodial sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the statutory driving-disqualification periods had been correctly imposed.

1. The original proceedings for causing death by dangerous driving had no lawful effect. Those offences were indictable only and should have been sent for trial under sections 51(1) and 51(2)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. The either-way serious-injury offence was lawfully committed for sentence and its sentence remained valid.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the driving was highly impaired by drugs. The assessment properly took account of the toxicology evidence, the applicant’s admitted cannabis consumption, the known effects of cannabis and cocaine, and the catastrophic loss of control shown by the driving footage. The guidelines did not require a reduction of the category A starting point merely because only one category A factor was present. This was one of the most serious cases of dangerous driving.

3. The starting point of 12 years for a single offence and single death was increased to 15 years to reflect two deaths, serious injury, the minor previous driving conviction and totality, while taking account of substantial mitigation. The sentence remained within the applicable range. The cases relied on by the applicant were fact-specific and concerned single offences, so they did not assist: R v Hull [2024] EWCA Crim 195 and R v Whiteman [2024] EWCA Crim 949. The custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive.

4. For causing death by dangerous driving, disqualification was obligatory for at least five years, subject to any special reasons, with an extension equal to two-thirds of the sentence and disqualification until passing an extended test. For causing serious injury by dangerous driving, a minimum two-year disqualification and an extended test were obligatory, with an extension equal to half the custodial sentence and a discretionary uplift under section 35B. The purpose of the statutory scheme is public protection as well as punishment and deterrence, and an uplift would ordinarily ensure that disqualification is served in the community rather than custody: R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455.

5. The absence of a slip-rule hearing meant that the original sentence was as announced by the judge and did not include disqualification for the serious-injury offence: R v Leitch [2024] EWCA Crim 563. Sections 34(1) and 35A(4)(fc) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not permit reduction of the statutory periods to reflect time already served. The court corrected the position under section 29(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by directing that the sentence take effect from 19 November 2024.

6. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 did not prevent the court imposing the omitted serious-injury disqualification, provided that the appellant was not more severely dealt with overall. The court imposed 104 months’ disqualification for that offence, comprising 24 months, a 12-month extension and a 68-month uplift, together with the extended-test requirement. Leave was granted and the appeals were allowed to that limited extent. The 10-year custodial sentences and the 140-month disqualification for the death offences were upheld.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 22 July 2025, the court granted leave and allowed the appeals to the limited extent explained, upholding the custodial sentences and correcting the disqualification orders: [2025] EWCA Crim 1180.
2. Divisional Court: On 25 June 2025, the court quashed the purported convictions for causing death by dangerous driving. A member of the constitution then sat as a District Judge and sent the two counts for trial at the Crown Court.
3. Crown Court at Guildford: On 1 July 2025, following re-arraignment and guilty pleas, the applicant was re-sentenced in substantially the same terms, subject to the revised disqualification issue.
4. Crown Court at Guildford: On 19 November 2024, the applicant had been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving.