R v Raymond Dagnall

An unsafe manoeuvre causing death by careless driving falls within culpability category A only if it is an extreme example of that category-B factor or is just below dangerous driving. A bad manoeuvre which does not meet that threshold may properly be sentenced in the upper part of category B, with an uplift from its starting point.

Where an appellate court changes culpability categorisation, it must reconsider the whole sentencing exercise. The decision whether custody should be suspended must then be freshly balanced, taking account of the revised sentence, the need for punishment and all relevant mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Barnsley Magistrates’ Court to causing death by careless driving after pulling from a side road into the path of a motorcyclist, who died in the collision. The Crown Court at Sheffield imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for seven years, with an extension period and an extended re-test requirement.

He appealed against both the categorisation of his driving under the sentencing guideline and the refusal to suspend the custodial sentence. He contended that the driving was an unsafe manoeuvre in category B, rather than category A, and relied on his substantial personal mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge was wrong to classify the offence in culpability category A. The appellant executed an unsafe manoeuvre and the error was serious, but it was not such an extreme example of that factor as to justify category A. It was properly an upper category-B case. The court endorsed the observation in R v Wilkinson [2019] EWCA Crim 702 that these cases turn closely on their facts, and noted that R v Dhuck [2014] EWCA Crim 2865 had applied superseded guidelines.

2. Because it differed from the judge on categorisation, the court reconsidered the entire sentencing exercise. It increased the one-year category-B starting point to 18 months to reflect the seriousness of the manoeuvre. The aggravating feature that the deceased was a vulnerable motorcyclist had to be considered, but the appellant’s genuine remorse, personal suffering and other powerful mitigation justified reducing the sentence to one year before credit for the guilty plea.

3. After the one-third reduction for the guilty plea, the appropriate custodial term was eight months. The court then conducted a fresh suspension assessment. Although the gravity and tragic consequence of the offence strongly supported immediate custody, the mitigation was sufficiently strong to justify suspending the eight-month sentence for 18 months. As the appellant had already served about 12 weeks, no requirements were imposed.

4. The court quashed the original sentence and disqualification order. It substituted an eight-month sentence, suspended for 18 months, and disqualification for seven years until the appellant passed an extended re-test. The custodial extension period was no longer appropriate once the sentence was suspended.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 202, allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the 12-month immediate custodial sentence, substituted an eight-month sentence suspended for 18 months, and varied the disqualification order.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — On 5 December 2024, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for causing death by careless driving and disqualified the appellant from driving for seven years, with a five-month extension period and an extended re-test requirement.
• Barnsley Magistrates’ Court — On 6 November 2024, the appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.