Factual and Procedural Background
On 26 March 2018, in the Crown Court at The City, the offender pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of driving whilst disqualified. On 27 April 2018, before Judge Lockhart QC, the offender was sentenced to concurrent terms of 9 years' imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving and 4 months' imprisonment for driving whilst disqualified, alongside a 15-year driving disqualification. The offender, who had never been qualified to drive, was required to undertake an extended driving test before being lawfully able to drive. The Solicitor General sought to refer the sentences as unduly lenient under s. 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and leave was granted.
The facts of the case involve a collision on 22 February 2018, when the offender drove at excessive speed (around 70 mph in a 30 mph zone) along a residential road where a group of mothers and children were crossing safely. The offender's vehicle struck two young children, who died from their injuries. The offender had a clear line of sight and sufficient stopping distance but made no effort to avoid the collision. Post-collision, the offender attempted to restart the vehicle, falsely claimed another person was driving, and fled the scene before being apprehended. The offender was found to have cocaine and sedatives in his system at the time of the offence.
The offender had an extensive criminal record with 57 convictions, including multiple driving offences, and had never held a driving licence. The sentencing judge assessed the offence as very serious, applying the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Level 1 categorisation with aggravating factors such as multiple deaths, previous convictions, driving whilst disqualified, and post-offence conduct. A 25% reduction was applied for the guilty plea, resulting in the sentences imposed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences imposed for causing death by dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified were unduly lenient.
- Whether consecutive sentences should have been imposed for the multiple counts of causing death by dangerous driving arising from a single incident.
- The appropriate starting point in sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving in light of aggravating factors and multiple deaths.
- The applicability and effect of sentencing guidelines and precedent concerning concurrent versus consecutive sentences in cases involving multiple fatalities.
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The sentencing judge should have imposed consecutive sentences for each count of causing death by dangerous driving to reflect the loss of two young lives.
- Consecutive sentences would allow a starting point exceeding the statutory maximum for a single offence, enabling a total sentence in the region of 12 years even after discount for plea.
- The general principle of concurrent sentences for offences arising from a single incident should be reconsidered in light of the serious consequences of multiple deaths.
- The starting point of 12 years' imprisonment was too low; a starting point at or near the maximum sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence.
Offender's Arguments (Represented by Attorney Smith)
- The sentencing judge conducted a meticulous analysis of relevant factors and reached a reasonable starting point of 12 years.
- Even if a longer sentence was possible, the imposed sentence was not unduly lenient as it fell within the judge's discretion.
- There exist worse cases for which the maximum sentence should be reserved.
- Previous authority and sentencing guidelines support concurrent sentences rather than consecutive ones for multiple deaths arising from a single act of dangerous driving.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Noble [2002] EWCA Crim 1713 |
Consecutive sentences should not normally be imposed for multiple deaths arising from a single incident of dangerous driving. |
Confirmed the principle that multiple deaths from one incident do not justify consecutive sentences; upheld concurrent sentences as appropriate. |
| Attorney-General's Ref (No 57 of 2009) (R v Ralphs) [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 |
Reaffirmed the principle against consecutive sentences for offences arising from the same incident. |
Approved R v Noble and held that concurrent sentences are generally appropriate for multiple deaths in a single act. |
| R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105 |
Consecutive sentences are inappropriate for multiple injuries from a single incident of dangerous driving; concurrent sentences with aggravation are preferred. |
Quashed consecutive sentences and imposed concurrent sentences, endorsing the established principle. |
| Attorney General's Reference (Nos 60, 62 and 63 of 2009) (Appleby) [2009] EWCA Crim 2693 |
Increased seriousness should be given to crimes resulting in death, particularly manslaughter sentencing. |
The court rejected the Solicitor General’s submission that Appleby permits consecutive sentences for multiple deaths in dangerous driving cases. |
| R v Dobby [2017] EWCA Crim 775 |
Demonstrated that manslaughter charges can result in longer sentences exceeding those for causing death by dangerous driving, with concurrent sentences applied. |
Used as an example of appropriate charging and sentencing where longer custodial terms are justified. |
| R v Mannan [2016] EWCA Crim 1082 |
Noted possibility of consecutive sentences where multiple victims and harm levels justify it, but not binding for multiple deaths from a single incident. |
Court held that reliance on Mannan to support consecutive sentences was misplaced as it was not part of the case ratio. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully considered the statutory framework, sentencing guidelines, and relevant case law concerning sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, especially where multiple deaths occur from a single incident. It affirmed the established principle that consecutive sentences should not normally be imposed for offences arising out of the same incident, as supported by R v Noble and subsequent cases. The court rejected the Solicitor General's argument that the principle should be overturned based on Appleby, noting that Appleby concerned manslaughter and did not affect dangerous driving sentencing principles.
The court highlighted that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years and that the sentencing guidelines provide a range up to that maximum for Level 1 offences with aggravating factors such as multiple deaths and prior convictions. The judge's starting point of 12 years was considered too low given the gravity of the case and aggravating features including the offender's extensive criminal record and driving while disqualified. The court concluded that the appropriate starting point before mitigation and plea discount should have been 14 years.
Applying a 25% reduction for the guilty plea, the court adjusted the sentence to 13 years for the causing death offences. It also held that the 4-month sentence for driving while disqualified should run consecutively, reflecting the distinct nature of that offence. After discounting, the total effective sentence was set at 10 years' imprisonment, with an adjusted driving disqualification period to reflect the increased custodial term.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE REFERENCE and quashed the original sentences imposed by the Crown Court. It substituted a sentence of 10 years and 3 months' imprisonment concurrent for the two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and a consecutive sentence of 3 months' imprisonment for driving while disqualified, resulting in a total effective custodial sentence of 10 years.
The driving disqualification period was adjusted accordingly, with a discretionary period of 10 years 6 months and an extension period increased to 5 years 3 months.
No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming the settled principle that consecutive sentences are generally inappropriate for multiple deaths arising from a single incident of dangerous driving. The decision underscores the court's commitment to applying sentencing guidelines and precedent consistently, emphasizing that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is not reserved for hypothetical cases but may be applied where the offence's seriousness justifies it.