R v Luke Humphreys

Under the sentencing guidelines for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, harm category 1 may apply where a permanent, irreversible injury has a substantial and long-term effect on normal activities or the victim’s ability to work. The ability-to-work criterion may be satisfied even if the victim can undertake some work, where many jobs or professions are closed off. However, temporary impairment and career concerns unsupported by medical evidence are insufficient. The guidelines should not be read as statutes. Correcting the harm classification from A1 to A2 does not require a lower sentence where the sentence remains within the A2 range and is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

After pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol and failing to stop after an accident, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Canterbury to 30 months’ custody and disqualified from driving. He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offending fell within culpability category B rather than A and harm category 2 rather than 1. He also relied on evidence that the injured victim obtained employment after sentence. The central issues were the proper culpability and harm classifications, the relevance of the later employment evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant should technically have been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution because he was aged 20, but that error did not affect the length or outcome of the appeal.

1. Culpability. The offending properly fell within category A. The appellant’s driving was highly impaired by alcohol, he carried out an obviously dangerous manoeuvre by entering a main road at speed without stopping, and his speed was highly inappropriate for the nighttime road conditions.
2. Harm. The first two category 1 criteria, involving particularly grave or life-threatening injury or lifelong dependence on care or treatment, were not established. The third criterion concerns a permanent, irreversible injury or condition with a substantial and long-term effect on normal activities or the ability to work. A victim’s ability to undertake some work does not automatically prevent the criterion being met. In this case, however, the evidence showed substantial temporary impairment but did not establish a substantial and long-term effect on the victim’s ability to work. There was no supporting expert medical evidence. The correct classification was therefore A2, not A1.
3. Later evidence and sentence. The victim’s subsequent employment could not retrospectively undermine the factual basis on which sentence was imposed and did not determine the harm classification. The 40-month sentence before guilty-plea credit was within the A2 range of two to four years. The serious injuries, their effects on the victim’s life and the aggravating features justified a substantial increase from the starting point. Youth, good character, remorse and other mitigation were also taken into account. After the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 8 July 2025, the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court corrected the harm classification from A1 to A2 but upheld the sentence. [2025] EWCA Crim 997
2. Crown Court at Canterbury: On 1 April 2025, the appellant was sentenced to 30 months’ custody for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, with no separate penalty for the other offences apart from licence endorsement, and was disqualified from driving for 39 months subject to an extended retest.