Andronache, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence following convictions for two offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The appellant, a 32-year-old man of good character and a provisional UK licence holder, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment by the Crown Court at The City. The offences arose from an incident shortly after a night shift at a packaging factory in The City, where the appellant lost control of his vehicle, collided with parked cars, and caused serious injuries to two victims who were colleagues at the factory. The appellant pleaded guilty and received a 20% reduction for his plea. He was also disqualified from driving for 54 months and until passing an extended driving test. The appeal challenges the length of the custodial sentence imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of three years' imprisonment (three years nine months before credit for plea) for two offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the appropriate starting point for sentencing should have been lower, around 12 months' imprisonment before adjustments, based on the Sentencing Council Guideline for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving at Level 3, proportionally reduced for causing serious injury.
• It was submitted that the case involved a brief but obvious danger and that the appellant's personal mitigation, including good character and remorse, warranted a significantly lower sentence.
• Reference was made to precedent cases where sentences were reduced, including cases involving multiple victims and serious injuries, to argue that the sentence was too high.

Court's Observations on Arguments

• The court noted that the sentencing judge did not accept the submission that this was a Level 3 case under the causing death guideline, implying a higher level of seriousness.
• The single judge had expressed doubt about the Level 3 classification but accepted it was arguable that the starting point was too high.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the submissions and the facts of the case. It rejected the appellant's contention that the case should be classified as Level 3 offending under the causing death guideline, instead placing it at Level 2. The court reasoned that the appellant's driving created a "substantial" risk of danger through aggressive and high-speed driving that led to catastrophic injuries to two victims. The presence of multiple seriously injured victims, the appellant's provisional licence status, lack of proper supervision, and failure to display L-plates were significant aggravating factors. The court acknowledged the appellant's good character and remorse but found these mitigating factors insufficient to reduce the starting point below the judge's original estimate of three years nine months before credit for plea. The court emphasized the statutory maximum sentence of five years and the necessary compression of sentencing ranges, concluding that the sentence imposed properly reflected the seriousness of the offences and the aggravating circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was DISMISSED. The court held that the sentence of three years' imprisonment, after credit for plea, was not manifestly excessive given the facts and aggravating features. The direct consequence is that the appellant's custodial sentence and disqualification remain in place. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but reaffirms the application of sentencing guidelines and the approach to assessing the seriousness of causing serious injury by dangerous driving offences involving multiple victims.