R v Mark Roberts

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal asks whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, not whether it would have imposed a different sentence. A factual error that materially colours sentencing, especially where the offender had no fair opportunity to answer it, is an error in principle. Multiple offences arising from the same dangerous driving may be reflected in the lead sentence, subject to totality and proper weight being given to mitigation. Custody may be suspended where the guideline factors support suspension and immediate custody is not the only adequate punishment. For offences under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, obligatory disqualification is at least five years unless there are special reasons. An extension under section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does not count towards that minimum.

The appellant, a serving police response driver, was convicted at the Crown Court at Teesside of causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving arising from one accident. On 7 April 2026 he received concurrent custodial sentences totalling 27 months and was disqualified from driving for five years and one month. He appealed against sentence. The issues included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, whether the judge had relied on an inaccurate interpretation of the pre-sentence report, whether the custodial terms could be suspended, and whether the disqualification period was lawful.

The appeal was allowed.

1. Appellate review. The court’s task was to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, not whether it would have imposed a different sentence. The sentencing judge’s advantages from hearing the trial evidence also had to be respected.
2. Sentencing assessment. The judge was entitled in principle to reflect the serious injury caused by the same dangerous driving in the sentence for the lead offence, while applying totality. However, the judge had treated the pre-sentence report as showing that the appellant had deliberately ignored his training and the law. That inference was not established by the report, was factually inaccurate, and was unfair because the appellant had not given evidence and had no opportunity to answer the criticism. It therefore materially affected the sentencing exercise.
3. Mitigation. The judge had insufficiently reflected the considerable mitigation. Relevant matters included the appellant’s PTSD and depression, the effect on his employment and finances, and the impact of his disqualification and imprisonment on the care of his disabled daughter. Balancing all aggravating and mitigating factors, the shortest commensurate sentence for the lead offence was 24 months’ custody.
4. Suspension. The relevant guideline factors supported suspension. There was no real risk of reoffending or harm, no history of non-compliance, strong personal mitigation, a considerable prospect of rehabilitation, and a serious impact on family care. Although the consequences were grave, the offending was a momentary error of judgment rather than prolonged dangerous driving. Appropriate punishment did not require immediate custody.
5. Disqualification. For an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the obligatory minimum disqualification was five years unless special reasons existed. Applying R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, an extension under section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not count towards that minimum. Once the custodial sentences were suspended, no extension period arose.

The 27-month sentence was quashed and replaced by a 24-month sentence suspended for 18 months. The 12-month concurrent sentence was also suspended for 18 months. The unlawful disqualification was quashed and replaced by the mandatory five-year period. The concurrent two-year disqualification and extended retest requirement remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was allowed; the custodial sentences and driving disqualification were varied.
• Crown Court at Teesside: The appellant was convicted on 4 February 2026 and sentenced on 7 April 2026 to 27 months’ imprisonment, with disqualification from driving for five years and one month.