R v Jenniver Harris

When fixing a driving-disqualification period, the sentencing court may impose a significant period where necessary to protect the public. Relevant considerations include the level of risk to road users and pedestrians, aggravating features such as driving with a revoked licence or without insurance, and previous driving convictions. Rehabilitation, employment prospects and reliance on a car must be considered, but they do not prevent a substantial disqualification where public protection requires it. An encouraging progress report obtained shortly after sentence will not necessarily justify appellate interference if it does not remove the concerns underlying the order.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Winchester, the appellant was convicted on 17 December 2025 of dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 3 February 2026, she received a suspended custodial sentence and was disqualified from driving for three years, subject to passing an extended re-test. With permission, she appealed against the disqualification only. She argued that the period was manifestly excessive and impaired her rehabilitation, relying on evidence of abstinence from alcohol, employment prospects, rural isolation and an updated probation report. The central issue was whether the Recorder had been entitled to impose three years despite those matters.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal. The challenge concerned only the three-year disqualification; the suspended sentence was not criticised.

1. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that a significant period of disqualification was necessary to protect the public. The dangerous driving involved a very high level of risk to road users and pedestrians. Relevant aggravating features included driving with a revoked licence and without insurance. The appellant also had two previous driving convictions.
2. The court rejected the submission that the Recorder had failed to consider rehabilitation when fixing the disqualification. The Recorder had given full and proper regard to the relevant rehabilitative matters when imposing the suspended sentence and was not shown to have overlooked them when setting the disqualification period. Rehabilitation, employment prospects, reliance on a car and the appellant’s steps to stop driving remained relevant, but did not outweigh the protective purpose of the order.
3. The updated report was encouraging, but it had been prepared only four months after sentence. It did not remove the concerns which had justified the order, including the risk that the appellant might be unable to maintain her progress. It was therefore fully open to the Recorder to conclude that three years was necessary to protect the public.

The appeal was dismissed and the disqualification order remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against the disqualification order dismissed. [2026] EWCA Crim 1082 .
• Crown Court at Winchester: Following conviction for dangerous driving, the appellant received a suspended sentence and a three-year driving disqualification with an extended re-test requirement.