Price & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by two young appellants following a high-speed dangerous driving incident resulting in death and serious injury. The incident occurred on 13 June 2021 when both appellants were 19 years old. They were convicted on 20 December 2023 and sentenced on 19 January 2024 by His Honour Judge Thomas KC at the Crown Court in Swansea.

The appellants were charged with causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving, among other offences including causing death by driving whilst unlicensed and uninsured. The sentencing was conducted under the legal framework applicable at the time of the offence, with the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving capped at 14 years, notwithstanding subsequent legislative increases effective after the offence date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence should be granted, including consideration of the extension of time for filing these appeals.
2. The impact of duplicity in counts charging causing death by driving while unlicensed and uninsured on the safety of the convictions.
3. The appropriateness and adequacy of the sentences imposed, including consideration of the appellants' age, mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing guidelines.
4. The effect of statutory provisions governing driving disqualification periods in relation to custodial sentences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Price's Arguments

• The sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to Price's age at the time of the offence.
• The sentence did not adequately reflect the impact of her children, including the child born after the offence and the child expected at sentencing, particularly considering the distance from her place of incarceration to her home region.
• The judge failed to properly consider additional mitigating factors such as delay in proceedings and Price's previous good character.
• A previously advanced ground was sensibly abandoned.

Appellant Clarke's Arguments

• Relied on similar age-related mitigation as Price.
• Argued that his plea to a lesser offence (causing death by careless driving) shortly before trial should have resulted in some credit or distinction in sentencing.
• Asserted greater immaturity relative to Price as a mitigating factor warranting a reduced sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by addressing the duplicity in counts relating to causing death by driving while unlicensed and uninsured, agreeing with counsel that while the counts were technically defective, no injustice or unfairness resulted. It held that the convictions were not unsafe and refused extensions of time for appeals against conviction since such appeals would inevitably fail.

Regarding sentence appeals, the court carefully considered the factual matrix including the appellants’ youth, immaturity, previous good character, and the tragic consequences of their dangerous driving, which involved racing over a significant distance at high speeds. The judge’s sentencing approach was found to be constrained by the statutory maximum sentence of 14 years but compliant with current sentencing guidelines that set a starting point of 12 years for culpability level A, with an appropriate increase due to the extent and persistence of dangerous driving and the serious injury caused.

The court acknowledged the judge’s detailed and humane sentencing remarks, which accounted for mitigating factors such as age, immaturity (particularly for Clarke), serious injuries sustained by Clarke, and the impact on Price’s children. The court rejected the submission that Clarke should have received credit for his plea to a lesser offence, noting that no such credit is warranted when the plea is not to the offence for which sentence is imposed.

The court concluded that the judge’s sentencing reflected a substantial reduction from what would have been imposed on older offenders without similar mitigation. Having considered the evidence and submissions anxiously and thoroughly, the court found the applications to appeal against sentence to be unarguable and refused them.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, as well as the applications for extensions of time to bring those appeals.

The direct effect is that the convictions and sentences imposed by the Crown Court stand. No new legal precedent was established by this decision. The court emphasized that the sentencing judge had appropriately applied the law and sentencing guidelines, properly weighed mitigating factors, and fully appreciated the tragic circumstances and consequences of the offences. The refusal of the appeals confirms the finality of the sentence and conviction in this case.