R v Connor Mears

A sentence for causing death by dangerous driving may properly be increased above the applicable Category A guideline starting point where several high-culpability features are present. Those features may include prolonged and deliberate dangerous driving, impairment through drugs or alcohol, evading the police, and greatly excessive speed. The sentencing court must avoid double counting overlapping factors.

Additional driving offences, danger to others, injury, and a vulnerable road user may further aggravate the overall offending. Personal mitigation may carry little weight in exceptionally serious circumstances, while an early guilty plea may still attract full credit. An appellate court will not interfere where the resulting sentence is within the appropriate range and is not manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by driving whilst uninsured, failing to stop after an accident, and driving whilst unfit through drugs. After a police pursuit in Liverpool, his uninsured vehicle left the road and struck a bench, causing injuries from which a rough sleeper died.

At the Crown Court at Liverpool, the judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment after allowing one-third credit for early guilty pleas. The judge also imposed a total driving disqualification of 18 years. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after the Single Judge had refused permission.

The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because the judge had adopted too high a starting point and failed to give sufficient weight to personal mitigation.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the 12-year aggregate sentence was entirely appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to begin with the applicable Category A guideline starting point of 12 years for the offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The judge was also entitled to make a significant upward adjustment before credit for plea. The applicant’s driving was prolonged, persistent and deliberate. He was impaired by drugs, evading the police, and travelling far in excess of the speed limit. The judge had correctly recognised overlap between the high-culpability factors and guarded against double counting.

3. The further aggravating features supported the overall sentence. They included the vulnerability of the deceased, injury to another driver, danger to the passenger, driving without insurance, and failing to stop. The court accepted that the applicant’s difficult background, lifestyle, later attendance at hospital, and surrender to police carried little mitigating weight in the circumstances. It also accepted the one-third reduction for the early guilty pleas.

4. The court endorsed both the Single Judge’s reasons and the sentencing judge’s reasoning as beyond criticism. It declined to review the separate disqualification steps for the uninsured-driving and drug-impaired-driving offences. Any such review was academic because the disqualification imposed for the principal offence was correct and subsumed their practical effect.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 515.

• Crown Court at Liverpool — on 3 January 2024, HHJ Flewitt KC imposed an aggregate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment and a total driving disqualification of 18 years.

• Wirral Magistrates’ Court — on 9 October 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to failing to stop and drug-impaired driving, and was committed for sentence under section 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020.