R v Robert Hilary Wade

On an appeal against sentence, appellate intervention requires an error of principle or a sentence that is manifestly excessive. Strong personal mitigation, including age, good character, remorse, a guilty plea and an undiagnosed medical condition, does not require a community order where the seriousness of the offence crosses the custody threshold. A custodial sentence may be suspended while remaining proportionate. A discretionary extension of driving disqualification and a requirement to pass an extended driving test are not disproportionate where justified by the circumstances of the collision and the driver’s diagnosed sleep condition.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil to causing serious injury by careless driving. He had fallen asleep while driving and collided head-on with another vehicle, causing an elderly complainant serious and permanent injuries. The appellant was subsequently diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnoea.

The Crown Court imposed 16 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with 80 hours of unpaid work. It also imposed a two-year driving disqualification, continuing until the appellant passed an extended driving test. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that a community order was appropriate and that the extended disqualification and test requirement were disproportionate.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The offence was properly treated as serious and within category B1 of the relevant guideline. The starting point was 26 weeks’ imprisonment, with a range extending from a high-level community order to one year’s imprisonment.
2. The sentencing judge had taken account of the appellant’s age, positive good character, previous driving record, remorse, immediate acceptance of responsibility, guilty plea and previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea. Full credit for the guilty plea had been allowed, notwithstanding that it was entered on the morning of trial when the indictment was amended.
3. By pleading guilty, the appellant accepted on an informed basis that he had been careless and that the accident could otherwise have been avoided. The sentence therefore had to be assessed on that basis, notwithstanding his lack of prior awareness of the sleep condition.
4. The mitigation justified a reduction from the guideline starting point to a notional sentence of 24 weeks, followed by the imposed sentence of 16 weeks suspended for 12 months. The reduction might not have been particularly generous, but it disclosed no error of principle. The seriousness of the injuries and their permanent effect meant that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The weight to be given to personal mitigation was ultimately a matter of judgment, and the court would not intervene merely because another judge might have given it greater weight.
5. In light of the facts of the collision and the appellant’s diagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea, the two-year disqualification and requirement to pass an extended driving test were not disproportionate, despite their adverse impact on the appellant.
6. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the offence crossed the custody threshold and that imprisonment was unavoidable, although its operation could properly be suspended. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 26 March 2025, dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2025] EWCA Crim 555.
• Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil: On 10 January 2025, sentenced the appellant to 16 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months, 80 hours’ unpaid work and a two-year driving disqualification continuing until an extended driving test was passed.