R v Callum McCann

In sentencing appeals, the court must avoid double counting where one offence supplies the means by which another is committed. A vehicle used to commit affray may substantially overlap with the dangerous driving, while separate driving offences may still aggravate the sentence. The court must make proper allowance for personal mitigation, including an exceptionally troubled upbringing, although mitigation does not remove responsibility for deliberate offending. Totality requires the aggregate sentence to reflect distinct incidents and concurrent sentences imposed for related offences. A sentence capable of suspension may nevertheless remain too serious to suspend. The appeal court may substitute a lawful sentence and correct statutory descriptions and driving disqualification terms.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, driving without insurance, affray and handling stolen goods arising from incidents on 5 and 7 May 2025. On 22 December 2025, Mr Recorder Barnett imposed an aggregate sentence of 26 months’ custody, together with a driving disqualification and an extended driving test requirement.

With permission, the appellant challenged the sentence on three grounds: alleged double counting in sentencing the affray and dangerous driving; inadequate allowance for totality in relation to the 7 May offences; and insufficient allowance for personal mitigation. The central question was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Appeal allowed in part. The aggregate sentence was reduced from 26 months to 21 months, comprising 15 months for affray and 6 months for the 7 May dangerous driving. The sentence was not suspended.

1. Affray and dangerous driving. The overlap between the offences was virtually complete because the vehicle was the means by which the appellant carried out the intention to cause fear and distress forming the basis of the category A1 affray. The dangerous driving therefore could not properly justify the substantial uplift imposed for the affray. Driving while disqualified and without insurance were separate driving offences and remained relevant aggravating features.
2. Personal mitigation. The appellant’s extremely troubled upbringing, PTSD, anger-management difficulties and substantial rehabilitative support required meaningful consideration in sentence. Those matters did not obviously explain buying and driving the car while disqualified, or continuing to drive it after the first incident. The sentence for the affray was therefore substituted at 15 months, reflecting the starting point, overlap, mitigation and one-third guilty-plea reduction.
3. 7 May offences and totality. The dangerous driving fell within category A2 because it occurred while evading the police, with a starting point of 36 weeks. The related driving offences justified a modest uplift. The two incidents were separate and distinct, but no substantial further reduction for totality was required because related offences attracted no separate penalty and the handling sentence was concurrent. Intervention was justified because the aggregate sentence made materially insufficient allowance for personal mitigation.
4. Suspension and statutory corrections. Although the aggregate sentence was capable of suspension, the seriousness of deliberate dangerous driving on two separate days meant that it could not conscientiously be suspended. Sentences on counts 2, 4 and 6 were to be recorded as detention in a young offender institution under Sentencing Act 2020, section 262. The affray sentence was imprisonment because the appellant was aged 21 when convicted. The court accepted that the three-year disqualification should not be extended or uplifted in accordance with Needham, but amended it to continue until the appellant passed an extended driving test.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 22 December 2025, Mr Recorder Barnett sentenced the appellant to an aggregate 26 months’ custody, with driving disqualification and an extended re-test requirement.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal was allowed to the extent stated. The aggregate sentence was substituted with 21 months, the sentence was not suspended, and the disqualification terms were amended.