R v Reece Barlow

In fixing the length of a driving disqualification, a sentencing court should impose no longer a period than necessary. It must give proper weight to rehabilitation, including realistic employment prospects and evidence of progress, alongside the seriousness of the driving and the offender’s record.

A disqualification that gives inadequate weight to those matters may be manifestly excessive. The statutory additions to a discretionary driving ban must then be calculated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and failing to provide a specimen, and was committed for sentence from Blackburn Magistrates’ Court. He later pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to stalking.

On 12 April 2024, the Crown Court imposed consecutive custodial terms totalling 18 months. It also imposed an 89-month driving disqualification and required an extended driving test. The appellant appealed only the length of the disqualification, contending that it was manifestly excessive in light of his age and employment prospects.

The central issue was whether a seven-year discretionary period, producing an overall ban of 89 months after statutory adjustments, exceeded what was necessary having regard to rehabilitation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the 89-month driving disqualification as manifestly excessive and substituted a disqualification of 53 months. The requirement to pass an extended driving test, and all other parts of the sentence, remained unchanged.

2. The court accepted that the dangerous driving was exceptionally serious and that the appellant had previous driving convictions. Those matters justified a substantial ban. However, sentencing serves reform and rehabilitation under section 57 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The dangerous-driving guideline also requires a court not to disqualify for longer than necessary and to consider the effect on employment and employment prospects.

3. The sentencing judge had not adequately reflected the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation. He had accepted fault, made progress in custody, had accommodation on release, and had work available which ordinarily required driving. A seven-year discretionary disqualification therefore exceeded what was necessary.

4. Applying the statutory methodology, including R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, the court set a four-year discretionary period under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It deducted four months for time spent on remand, added six months under section 35A for half the custodial sentence for dangerous driving, and added three months under section 35B for half the aggregate custodial sentence for the other offences. The resulting total was 53 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 139, the court allowed the appeal against the driving disqualification, quashed the 89-month period, and substituted 53 months.
• Crown Court at Preston — On 12 April 2024, the appellant received consecutive custodial terms totalling 18 months for dangerous driving, failing to provide a specimen, and stalking. The court imposed an 89-month driving disqualification and an extended-retest requirement.
• Blackburn Magistrates’ Court — On 12 December 2023, following guilty pleas to dangerous driving and failing to provide a specimen, the appellant was committed for sentence.