R v Rhys Courtney

The sentencing guideline factor of racing or competitive driving against another vehicle properly places culpability in category A, provided the categorisation reflects an evaluative finding rather than operating mechanically. In deciding whether to suspend a custodial sentence, the court must balance factors favouring suspension, including rehabilitation prospects, low reoffending risk and personal mitigation, against the seriousness of the offence. The seriousness of high-speed racing on an ordinary road may outweigh those factors and require immediate custody. An appellate court should not interfere with a careful balancing exercise absent good reason.

After pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1998, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Nottingham to 18 months’ imprisonment. The offence arose from competitive racing on an ordinary road. The appellant lost control at high speed and collided with another vehicle, causing serious injury to its front-seat passenger.

Following a Newton hearing, the judge found that the appellant had joined the racing. She placed culpability in category A, imposed a two-year sentence before credit for plea, and declined to suspend the resulting term. The appellant challenged the length of the sentence, the refusal to suspend it, and the related driving disqualification.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to place culpability in category A. The categorisation was not mechanistic. It reflected the finding, made after the Newton hearing and supported by video evidence, that the appellant had engaged in racing or competitive driving against another vehicle.
2. The pre-credit sentence of two years was fully merited. The reduction of credit for plea to 25 per cent, following the Newton hearing, therefore produced an appropriate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
3. The decision whether to suspend the sentence required a careful assessment of the rival factors identified in the sentencing guideline. Factors favouring suspension included the appellant’s young age, positive good character, realistic prospect of rehabilitation, low risk of reoffending, personal mitigation and the state of the prison estate.
4. Those factors did not require suspension. The seriousness of the offending was very high: the appellant had participated in high-speed racing on an ordinary road, creating a substantial risk of serious injury, which materialised. The gravity of the offending eclipsed the factors favouring suspension and required immediate imprisonment. There was no good reason for the appellate court to interfere with the judge’s careful balancing exercise.
5. Since the custodial sentence was upheld, the challenge to the two-year driving disqualification, with a nine-month extension period, also failed. The disqualification was entirely appropriate.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 April 2026, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. [2026] EWCA Crim 525
2. Crown Court at Nottingham: On 4 March 2026, following a guilty plea and Newton hearing, the appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years, with a nine-month extension period.