Fernandez, 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. On 31 March 2025, in the Crown Court at The City, the Defendant was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. The Defendant pleaded guilty on the first day of trial and received a 10% discount for this plea.

The incident occurred on 12 June 2023, when the Defendant was driving at an excessive speed through a traffic light controlled junction. The deceased, a pedestrian, was struck and later died from injuries sustained in the collision. The Defendant's blood sample showed a metabolite of cocaine above the legal limit, though expert evidence indicated no impairment from this substance. The Defendant was sentenced after consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, including a previous conviction and expressions of remorse.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in categorising the Defendant's culpability as category B rather than category A under the offence-specific guideline for causing death by careless driving.
2. Whether the judge failed to properly consider aggravating factors, specifically the Defendant's previous conviction for driving with excess alcohol and the vulnerability of the deceased as a pedestrian.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The driving should have been categorised as culpability A, warranting a starting point of 9 years' custody with a range of 6 to 12 years, rather than the 6 years starting point with a range of 4 to 9 years applied by the judge.
• The judge failed to take account of specific aggravating factors, including the Defendant's previous conviction for driving over the alcohol limit and the deceased’s status as a vulnerable road user.

Defendant's Arguments

• The sentence was not unduly lenient and the driving was correctly categorised as culpability B.
• The judge properly considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors and the sentence was appropriate.
• The basis of plea submitted before trial did not bar the judge from categorising culpability B rather than A.
• Eyewitness accounts did not indicate near dangerous driving.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the CCTV evidence and concluded that the judge was entitled to find the Defendant's driving was inappropriate for the prevailing conditions but did not reach the threshold for dangerous driving or an extreme example of culpability B. This factual finding was deemed permissible and correct.

The court also examined the judge's sentencing remarks and found that all aggravating and mitigating factors, including the previous conviction and the deceased’s vulnerability as a pedestrian, were properly considered. The judge acknowledged the zero tolerance for drugs above the legal limit despite no impairment being evident, and took into account the Defendant’s remorse and psychological condition.

Overall, the court found no error in the judge’s balancing of factors or the resulting sentence before discount for the guilty plea.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE for the Solicitor General to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

The direct effect is that the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with a 10% discount for the guilty plea, stands. No new precedent was established by this decision. The court acknowledged the tragic consequences of the incident but emphasized that the sentence was within the appropriate guideline range and properly reasoned.