REGINA v Petherick

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant appealed against a sentence of four years and nine months imposed for causing death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol, having entered prompt guilty pleas. In June 2011, the Defendant, aged 22, was a single mother of a 16-month-old boy and was undertaking an Access to Nursing course with the aim of qualifying in midwifery. The Defendant had recently ended her relationship with the child's father, with the child living primarily with her.

On the night of 25th June 2011, the Defendant and a group of friends consumed substantial quantities of brandy. The Defendant drove the group to purchase more alcohol and, on the return journey, drove recklessly and at excessive speeds along an urban high street with a 30 mph speed limit. Encouraged by some passengers to drive faster, the Defendant overtook multiple vehicles and ultimately collided with an oncoming double decker bus. One passenger was fatally injured, and another suffered serious injuries. The Defendant's breath alcohol level was more than double the legal limit. The Defendant was sentenced after a trial was avoided due to her guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of four years and nine months was appropriate for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and driving with excess alcohol.
2. Whether the sentencing judge properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, including the Defendant's youth, remorse, and family circumstances.
3. Whether the impact on the Defendant's infant son and the rights to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were adequately considered.
4. Whether the sentence should be further reduced on the basis of the Defendant's inexperience as a driver.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant, through counsel, sought mercy on the basis of her genuine remorse, youth, and previous good character.
• It was argued that the sentencing judge should have given greater weight to the impact of the sentence on the Defendant's infant son, who was her sole dependent.
• A further reduction was requested on the grounds of the Defendant's inexperience as a driver, having passed her test only six months prior to the incident.
• Reference was made to Article 8 rights concerning family life and the need to balance these rights against the legitimate aims of sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed and principled analysis of the sentencing exercise, beginning with the recognition that no sentence can undo the harm caused by the Defendant's reckless and intoxicated driving, which resulted in death and serious injury. The sentencing judge correctly identified aggravating factors including grossly excessive speed, intoxication, persistent inappropriate overtaking, dishonesty to the police, and driving a vehicle without a valid MOT certificate.

Mitigating factors included the Defendant’s prompt guilty plea, genuine remorse, youth, previous good character, and constructive background. The judge also considered the significant impact of the sentence on the Defendant’s infant son, for whom she was the sole carer, and the disruption to their relationship caused by the custodial sentence.

The court emphasized the necessity of balancing the legitimate aims of sentencing—punishment, deterrence, and public protection—with the interference a custodial sentence causes to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court reviewed relevant Supreme Court authority and sentencing guidelines, affirming that family circumstances are a relevant mitigating factor but do not automatically reduce sentences by any fixed amount.

The sentencing judge’s starting point of eight years was appropriate for the seriousness of the offence, with reductions applied for the plea and personal mitigation. The court accepted the judge’s rejection of inexperience as a mitigating factor distinct from recklessness.

On appeal, the court found that the combined effect of personal mitigation and the impact on the child warranted a further reduction in sentence. The court adjusted the sentence to three years and ten months, consistent with the judge’s approach but reflecting a greater allowance for these factors.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is ALLOWED IN PART by substituting a sentence of three years and ten months in place of the original four years and nine months.

This decision directly reduces the custodial sentence imposed on the Defendant while affirming the principle that serious offences causing death require substantial punishment. The judgment underscores the importance of carefully balancing the legitimate aims of sentencing with the impact on family life, particularly the rights of dependent children under Article 8. No new legal precedent was established, but the court reaffirmed existing principles and provided guidance on their application in sentencing involving family life considerations.