Haslam, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient relating to causing death by dangerous driving. The central questions involve whether the increase in the maximum sentence for this offence, following the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 ("the 2022 Act"), should affect sentencing levels 2 and 3 under the relevant Sentencing Council Guideline, and whether the judge correctly categorised the offence level.

The offence occurred on 24 July 2022. The Defendant, aged 19 years and 7 months at the time, was sentenced on 24 February 2023 to 32 months' detention in a young offender institution for causing the death of the victim by dangerous driving, with a concurrent 14 months' sentence for causing serious injury to another victim. Driving disqualification and a victim surcharge were also imposed.

The Solicitor General contended the sentence should be increased in light of the 2022 Act and challenged the judge's classification of the offending as level 3 rather than level 2. The Defendant's representative argued that any guideline adjustment should await the Sentencing Council's forthcoming revised Guideline and maintained the sentence was not unduly lenient.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the increase in the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving under the 2022 Act should affect sentencing for level 2 and 3 offences under the Sentencing Council Guideline.
2. Whether the judge was correct in categorising the offence as a high level 3 offence rather than a level 2 offence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge should have increased the sentence to reflect the increased maximum penalty introduced by the 2022 Act.
• The offence was properly classified as level 2 offending, and the judge erred in categorising it as level 3.
• The sentence imposed was therefore unduly lenient.

Appellee's Arguments

• Any adjustment to sentences for levels 2 and 3 should await the Sentencing Council's revised Guideline, anticipated imminently.
• The fact that other judges might impose higher sentences is irrelevant; the question is whether the sentence was unduly lenient.
• The sentence demonstrated no gross error and was supported by thoughtful judicial reasoning.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognised the 2022 Act increased the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life imprisonment, primarily targeting the most serious (level 1) offences. The Sentencing Council's Guideline categorises offences into three levels, with level 1 being the most serious, level 2 involving substantial risk of danger, and level 3 involving significant risk of danger.

The Court noted that the increase in sentence maximums should be reflected in sentencing but deferred to the Sentencing Council for adjustments to levels 2 and 3, as the Council was in the process of revising the Guideline. This approach aligns with the Court of Appeal's decision in Soto, which addressed level 1 offences and advised against increasing lower-level sentences before the Sentencing Council's review.

Regarding the categorisation of the offence, the Court found that the judge erred in classifying it as level 3; the facts demonstrated a substantial risk of danger consistent with level 2, particularly due to the greatly excessive speed on wet roads. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the sentence, though lenient, was not unduly lenient. The judge had properly considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious injury to the second victim, previous warnings ignored by the Defendant, the Defendant's youth, remorse, and guilty plea.

The Court emphasized that appellate interference is reserved for sentences that are manifestly excessive or unduly lenient, not those that are merely lenient or only slightly excessive, and found no basis to increase the sentence.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED THE REFERENCE, upholding the sentence of 32 months' detention for causing death by dangerous driving and concurrent 14 months for causing serious injury.

The direct effect is that the Defendant's sentence stands as imposed. No broader precedent was established beyond affirming the deferment of adjustments to sentencing levels 2 and 3 pending the Sentencing Council's revised Guideline. The Court reaffirmed the principle that legislative increases in maximum sentences must be taken into account but that detailed guideline changes are properly the Sentencing Council's domain.