Reaffirmation of Deliberate Dangerous Speeding as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing: Smith v R [2023] EWCA Crim 1097

Introduction

Smith, R. v R is a pivotal judgment delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on September 8, 2023. The case revolves around the appellant, Mr. Smith, who was sentenced to 44 months' imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving. This judgment not only upholds the original sentence imposed by HHJ Mann KC but also reaffirms critical principles concerning the treatment of deliberate excessive speeding and the misplacement of blame in criminal sentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Smith was convicted for causing the death of Mr. Derek Harmer through dangerous driving. The incident occurred on August 6, 2019, when Mr. Smith was driving at approximately 81 mph in a 40 mph zone on the A223, a dual carriageway in South-East London. Despite initially slowing to pass a speed camera, Mr. Smith accelerated sharply, leading to a collision with Mr. Harmer’s vehicle, who was executing a legal right turn.

The Crown Court sentenced Mr. Smith to 44 months' imprisonment, a decision based on the offense-specific sentencing guidelines, with the judge considering both aggravating factors (such as "grossly excessive speed") and mitigating factors (including Mr. Smith’s remorse and personal circumstances). Mr. Smith appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the judge erred in treating his deliberate speeding as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence. The appellate judges agreed with the single judge's assessment that deliberate excessive speeding and the attempt to mislead authorities constituted significant aggravating factors justifying the imposed sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references key precedents that shape the court's approach to sentencing in cases involving dangerous driving:

R v Cooper [2018] EWCA Crim 1958: This case emphasized the proper calculation of disqualification periods under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, particularly the automatic deduction of interim disqualification periods.
R v Cole [2021] EWCA Crim 3025: Further reinforced the application of section 26(12) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, ensuring that sentencing judges appropriately deduct interim disqualification periods without manual adjustments.

These precedents were instrumental in guiding the Court of Appeal's decision to correct the disqualification period calculation, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously evaluated the single judge's reasoning, affirming the treatment of deliberate speeding as an aggravating factor. The key points in the legal reasoning include:

Deliberate Excessive Speeding: The appellant's acceleration from 40 mph to 81 mph within 430 meters after passing a speed camera was deemed deliberate and flagrantly disregarded the speed limit, elevating the offense's severity.
Attempt to Mislead Authorities: Mr. Smith’s initial false statement to the police, claiming he was driving at 40 mph and shifting blame onto Mr. Harmer, was viewed as aggravating due to the intentional obstruction of justice.
Consideration of Mitigating Factors: While acknowledging Mr. Smith’s remorse, mental health issues, family impact, and lack of prior convictions, the court held that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the aggravated nature of the offense.
Proper Application of Sentencing Guidelines: The single judge's adherence to the offense-specific sentencing guidelines, augmented by the General Guideline's over-arching principles, was upheld as correctly applied.

Impact

This judgment reinforces several critical aspects of criminal sentencing:

Affirmation of Aggravating Factors: By upholding the treatment of deliberate excessive speeding as an aggravating factor, the judgment sets a clear precedent for similar future cases, emphasizing that such behavior will significantly influence sentencing severity.
Integrity in Legal Proceedings: The dismissal of attempts to mislead authorities underscores the judiciary's intolerance for dishonesty in the courtroom, promoting integrity and accountability.
Guidelines Compliance: The correction and reinforcement of proper disqualification period calculations ensure that sentencing aligns with statutory mandates, promoting consistency and fairness in judicial decisions.
Deterrence: The affirmation of significant penalties for dangerous driving acts as a deterrent, aiming to reduce similar offenses and enhance road safety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment contains several legal concepts that may be complex for laypersons. Here are clarifications to enhance understanding:

Aggravating Factor: A circumstance that makes a crime more serious, leading to a harsher sentence. In this case, Mr. Smith's deliberate excessive speeding was an aggravating factor.
Mitigating Factor: A circumstance that reduces the severity or culpability of a criminal act, potentially leading to a lighter sentence. Examples include expressing remorse or having no prior convictions.
Offense-Specific Sentencing Guidelines: These are structured guidelines that provide a framework for determining appropriate sentences based on the specifics of the offense and the offender's circumstances.
Disqualification Period: A period during which an individual is prohibited from driving, imposed as part of the sentencing in traffic-related offenses.
Newton Hearing: A legal process where the court considers additional factors or new evidence before finalizing a guilty plea. In this case, it was not required.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Smith v R serves as a significant affirmation of the judiciary's stance on deliberate dangerous driving. By upholding the original sentence and the treatment of excessive speeding as an aggravating factor, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to traffic laws and maintaining integrity in legal proceedings. Additionally, the correction regarding the disqualification period aligns sentencing practices with statutory requirements, ensuring fairness and consistency.

This case not only impacts the involved parties but also sets a robust precedent for future cases involving dangerous driving. It emphasizes that while mitigating factors are essential in sentencing considerations, they do not negate the severity of aggravated offenses. Consequently, this judgment reinforces the legal framework aimed at promoting road safety and holding offenders accountable for reckless driving behaviors.