R v Robbie Cook

A sentencing judge may go outside a Sentencing Guideline category range where the aggravating and mitigating features justify that course, before applying the guilty-plea reduction. In a high-speed pursuit to recover a drug debt, the pursued driver's speed will not reduce culpability where it resulted from the offender's close pursuit and the pursued driver had no realistic opportunity to stop. Relevant aggravation may include the criminal context of the pursuit, risks to other road users, multiple deaths, failure to summon immediate assistance, and searching the wreck for drugs or money. Later notification of emergency services does not mitigate an earlier failure to call for help when earlier assistance might have saved lives.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to three counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. He received a total sentence of 18 years' imprisonment after a 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, together with driving disqualification and related orders.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal, arguing that the 24-year pre-discount starting point was excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, and that the deceased driver's speed, toxicology and conduct contributed to the deaths. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Application dismissed. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating features. The sentence could not be faulted and it was not arguable that it was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. The offence was within category A of the Sentencing Guideline, with a range of 8 to 18 years' custody. Nevertheless, the judge was entitled to go outside that range when identifying the sentence before applying the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction. The relevant features justified that approach.
3. The submission that the deceased driver was partly responsible was misconceived. His speed resulted from the applicant's very close, high-speed pursuit. The deceased driver was unfamiliar with the roads, was driving a smaller and less powerful vehicle, and had no opportunity to stop. The pursuit was undertaken to enforce a drug debt.
4. The judge was entitled to treat as aggravating the pursuit's connection with a drug deal, the risk posed to other road users, the deaths of three people, the applicant's failure to summon immediate medical assistance, and his conduct in searching the crashed vehicle for drugs or money. The judge had considered the mitigation and placed little or no weight on the applicant's previous convictions.
5. The applicant's later contact with the emergency services provided no mitigation. He had a phone and spent approximately three minutes at the scene using it as a torch rather than calling for help. Earlier assistance might have enabled some of the occupants to survive.
6. The court added that, had the conduct resulted in one death, a sentence of at least 16 years before credit for a guilty plea would have been appropriate. Three deaths made the present sentence still more clearly justified.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed on 30 October 2025.
2. Crown Court at Lewes: Guilty pleas entered on 23 October 2024. On 22 November 2024, the applicant was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment in total, disqualified from driving for 14 years, and ordered to take an extended retest.