R v Emma Louise Price & Anor

In sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, the applicable guideline and statutory maximum may operate by reference to different dates. The judge should first assess culpability and harm, including persistent dangerous driving and additional serious injury, before applying mitigation. That assessment may exceed the statutory maximum, but the final sentence may not. Youth and immaturity at the time of the offence can require a substantial reduction. An offender who admits only a lesser offence is not entitled to plea credit for the more serious offence. A technically duplicitous count will not justify an extension of time where the conviction is not arguably unsafe and any appeal would inevitably fail.

Emma Price and Jago Clarke, both aged 19 at the time of the offences, were convicted at the Crown Court at Swansea of causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. They received concurrent sentences, including 10 years for causing death. They sought extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Counts charging causing death by driving whilst unlicensed and uninsured were said to be duplicitous. The sentencing challenges concerned the applicable statutory maximum and guideline, youth and immaturity, the impact of imprisonment on Price’s children, serious injury, equal culpability and Clarke’s admission of a lesser offence. The central issues were whether the convictions were unsafe and whether the sentences properly reflected culpability, harm and mitigation.

Disposition. The applications for extensions of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.

1. Counts 2 and 3, brought under section 3 ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, were bad for duplicity because the provision created separate offences of causing death by driving whilst unlicensed and whilst uninsured. The parties agreed that no injustice or unfairness had resulted. The procedurally simplest course was therefore to refuse extensions of time: the convictions were not arguably unsafe and any appeals would inevitably fail.
2. The increase in the statutory maximum introduced by section 86(2) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 did not apply because the offences predated its commencement. The former 14-year maximum governed the final sentence. The current guideline nevertheless applied because the case was sentenced after its effective date.
3. The sentencing judge was required to assess culpability and harm before applying mitigation. Persistent high-speed competitive driving over a substantial distance and the very high risk of death justified a substantial increase above the guideline starting point. The additional serious injury also required a significant increase. That preliminary assessment was not constrained by the 14-year maximum, although the final sentence could not exceed it.
4. A substantial reduction was required to reflect the applicants’ age and immaturity. The court also accepted the relevance of Clarke’s serious injuries and the impact of Price’s imprisonment on her children. The sentences adequately reflected those factors.
5. Clarke was not entitled to credit for a guilty plea to the more serious offence because he had admitted only causing death by careless driving. His lack of memory did not alter that conclusion. Nor was there any basis for distinguishing the applicants’ culpability by reference to the precise mechanics of the collision; the judge was entitled to treat their sustained competitive driving as equally culpable.
6. The court noted the effect of R v Barnes (and two other cases), [2024] EWCA Crim 1548; [2024] EWHC 3192 Admin, on the required extension of driving disqualification. Any correction would have increased the overall sentence, and section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevented correction unless the sentence appeals were allowed and imprisonment reduced. No correction was made.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused, [2025] EWCA Crim 871.
2. Crown Court at Swansea: following trial on 20 December 2023, the applicants were convicted; they were sentenced on 19 January 2024.