REGINA v McCurry

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 February 2010, in the Leeds Magistrates' Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and was committed to the Crown Court for sentencing. On 11 March, the Crown Court sentenced the Appellant to 24 weeks' imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for three years, also ordering an extended driving test thereafter. The Appellant now appeals by leave of the single judge only against the disqualification period and the retest order.

On 28 July 2009, the Appellant was driving a heavy tipper lorry on an "A" road in the suburbs of Leeds around 10am. Due to roadworks, traffic was merged into one lane and nearly stationary. A 27-year-old female cyclist was riding in the cycle lane beside the Appellant's lane. As the Appellant prepared to turn left to avoid slow traffic, he briefly indicated but did not notice the cyclist who was too close to clear the lorry before the turn. The cyclist became entangled in the lorry's wheels and was dragged approximately thirty metres. The Appellant did not notice the collision and initially continued to a cul-de-sac, where a witness informed him of the incident. Upon learning this, the Appellant returned to the scene.

The cyclist was taken to hospital but was pronounced dead shortly after midday. The Appellant, aged 60, had no relevant prior convictions and held a clean driving licence. He had extensive professional experience as an HGV driver. A pre-sentence report noted his acceptance of full responsibility and genuine remorse. A victim impact statement from the deceased's parents highlighted the tragic loss of their only child, a promising young woman who had recently completed doctoral studies.

The sentencing judge categorized the offence as intermediate careless driving, not momentary inattention but not near dangerous driving, and imposed the custodial sentence, disqualification, and retest order. The appeal challenges only the disqualification length and retest requirement.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the three-year driving disqualification period imposed was excessive given the Appellant’s clean driving record and circumstances.
2. Whether the order requiring the Appellant to take an extended driving test was appropriate in this case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The disqualification period of three years was too long considering the Appellant’s clean driving history and the impact on his ability to work in his sole field of expertise.
• The grounds of appeal described the incident as a "momentary lapse," although the sentencing judge rejected this characterization.
• The Appellant contended that the mandatory twelve-month disqualification would be sufficient to reflect the offence's seriousness and protect the public.
• It was submitted that disqualification should not unduly impede rehabilitation after serving a custodial sentence, especially for offenders without prior bad driving records.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the tragic consequences but noted the Appellant’s clean driving record, age, and professional background. The sentencing judge had placed the offence in the intermediate category of careless driving, rejecting the notion of momentary inattention.

The court referred to established principles, including those summarized in Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Practice, emphasizing that disqualification’s primary purpose is public protection and should not unnecessarily hinder rehabilitation. The court found the original three-year disqualification excessive given the custodial sentence and the Appellant’s circumstances.

Regarding the retest order, the court observed that such a requirement is generally aimed at offenders with poor driving records, often younger individuals needing certification of fitness to drive. Given the Appellant’s clean record and professional experience, the court concluded the retest was not warranted.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal, reducing the driving disqualification period from three years to twelve months and setting aside the order for an extended driving test.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s driving disqualification is limited to the statutory minimum, and he is not required to undertake a retest. The decision does not establish new precedent but applies established sentencing principles to the specific facts and circumstances of this case.