Ravikumar, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of causing death by dangerous driving and four offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The offences arose from a collision at a junction on the Isle of Wight, where the Appellant failed to observe give way signs and collided with a double-decker bus, which then collided with another car. The collision resulted in the death of a passenger and serious injuries to multiple others, including the drivers of both vehicles and passengers. The Appellant, a young and inexperienced driver, expressed deep remorse and accepted responsibility from the outset. She was sentenced in the Crown Court to 18 months' detention in a young offender institution, with a driving disqualification of two years nine months plus an extended retest requirement. The Solicitor General applied for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the original sentence imposed for causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving was unduly lenient.
2. What the appropriate custodial sentence and driving disqualification period should be, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The sentence was unduly lenient given the serious injuries caused to multiple victims.
• The starting point and category range of the sentencing guideline applied to a first-time offender, but the aggravating features warranted a substantial upward adjustment.
• The overall sentence should have been significantly higher than 18 months.

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge carefully weighed all relevant factors and took a merciful approach.
• Although the sentence was lenient, it was not unduly so in the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the sentencing judge’s classification of the count involving causing death by dangerous driving as a category 3 offence under the Sentencing Guideline Council's definitive guideline. It also agreed with the approach of treating this as the lead offence and imposing concurrent sentences for the other counts. The court acknowledged the powerful mitigating factors, including the Appellant’s youth, inexperience, good character, immediate remorse, and the anxiety caused by the delay before prosecution. However, the court found that these mitigating factors were outweighed by the serious aggravating feature of four other victims suffering life-changing injuries. The court held that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the overall sentence should be reduced from the guideline starting point. Instead, the court found that the total sentence should have been increased to reflect the overall criminality. Applying the principle of totality and giving full credit for guilty pleas, the court determined the minimum appropriate custodial sentence to be two years four months, with a corresponding increase in the driving disqualification period.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO REFER and held that the original sentence was unduly lenient. It QUASHED the sentences imposed by the Crown Court and substituted the following sentences of detention in a young offender institution: two years four months on the count of causing death by dangerous driving, and 18 months on each of the counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, all to run concurrently. The driving disqualification period was increased to three years two months, with the requirement to pass an extended retest. The decision directly affects the Appellant’s sentence and driving disqualification but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the application of existing sentencing principles.