Summary of Opinion (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a summary of an appellate opinion delivered by Judge [Last Name] concerning an application by the Attorney for the Crown (Applicant) for leave to refer a sentence as unduly lenient.

The Defendant, aged 24 at the time of the proceedings, was originally sentenced on 9 June 2025 to a total of 4 years' imprisonment for two offences: (1) causing death by dangerous driving and (2) driving whilst unfit through drugs. At a slip-rule hearing on 11 July 2025 the Defendant was disqualified from driving for 5 years with an additional extension period previously calculated (and described in the earlier proceedings) as 139 weeks.

Material factual background (as found by the sentencing judge and recited on the Reference): the Defendant had been employed as a bus driver by Company A since January 2024 and was on an extended probationary period at the time of the incident. On 2–3 August 2024 the Defendant attended a late-night social event and sent and received mobile communications in the early hours. The Defendant left the depot at about 08:45 driving a red double-decker bus bound for the start point of the scheduled route at The Shopping Centre at 09:00. There were no defects affecting the bus's operation.

CCTV from inside the cab showed repeated yawning and moments of apparent nodding off shortly after departure. Witnesses following the bus described erratic and slow driving and unusually wide manoeuvres. Approximately 13 minutes after leaving the depot the bus crossed the road and mounted the pavement on The Road, narrowly missing an adult and a younger child but colliding with a nine-year-old child (the Victim), who later died that day. The Defendant telephoned his controller seeking urgent medical assistance and expressed panic at having hit a child.

Following arrest, the Defendant tested negative for alcohol but positive for cannabis. A blood sample contained not less than 5.9 micrograms of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per litre of blood, compared with the statutory legal limit of 2 micrograms per litre. Expert evidence described possible sedative effects of cannabis and that drivers under its influence may drive more slowly to compensate but cannot always compensate for sudden events; the expert also observed that the Defendant could have been fatigued from lack of sleep. Subsequent expert material and medical evidence disclosed a diagnosis of ADHD, with limited evidence (for the defence) suggesting cannabis might have different effects in such cases, but the court noted that the video evidence did not show any such beneficial effect in this incident.

Procedural history: the Defendant was arrested on 3 August 2024 and formally charged on 13 February 2025. He indicated guilty pleas in the Magistrates' Court and the case was sent to the Crown Court. At a preparatory hearing on 22 April 2025 the Defendant pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving (count 1) and to the statutory alternative to count 2; sentence was adjourned for reports. The Defendant had one previous conviction (battery) for which he received a 12-month conditional discharge in October 2023. A pre-sentence report and character material were prepared and served; these recorded remorse, some insight, and extensive character references. At the sentencing hearing the judge placed the offending in culpability category B, adopted a sentencing starting point and uplifted/reduced to reach an effective custodial term which, after allowance for plea, produced the 4-year total previously mentioned and a 5-year driving disqualification.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the original custodial sentence was unduly lenient such that leave to refer should be granted and the sentence increased.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offending as culpability category B rather than category A under the relevant guideline for causing death by dangerous driving.
3. Whether, even if the case were properly placed in category B, the sentence imposed failed to reflect the substantial period over which the Defendant drove in a dangerous state and the significant aggravating factors present.
4. Whether the court may have measured regard to the Sentencing Council offence-specific guideline for causing death by careless driving while under the influence (used as a cross-check), despite the Defendant's conviction being for dangerous driving rather than careless driving.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The sentence of 4 years was unduly lenient and should be substantially higher.
• The sentencing judge was wrong to categorise the offending as culpability category B; the Defendant's conduct fell within culpability category A for dangerous driving because (a) the Defendant deliberately attended for work after late-night socialising and did not stop despite clear signs of sleepiness, (b) there was a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of dangerous driving, and (c) there was a sustained lack of attention to driving over a substantial period (about 13 minutes).
• Even if the judge's categorisation were correct, the sentence imposed failed adequately to reflect the prolonged period of dangerous driving and the significant aggravating factors (vulnerability of the Victim, driving a public service vehicle, and being subject to court order).
• The court could have measured regard to the Sentencing Council's offence-specific guideline for causing death by careless driving while under the influence as a useful cross-check against the dangerous-driving starting points and ranges.

Respondent's Arguments

• The offence-specific guideline for causing death by careless driving while under the influence was not relevant because the Defendant had been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (not careless driving).
• Defensive expert evidence suggested the Defendant's ADHD diagnosis might mean cannabis had an atypical, possibly focusing, effect; the Defendant also relied on mitigation including remorse, assistance at the scene, youth and immaturity, early guilty plea, limited prior record, and strong character references.
• The sentencing judge had addressed the tension in the evidence and had reasoned that, although there were factors which could be said to bring the wrongdoing close to the highest category, the case was not equivalent to someone who deliberately drove in a sustained, knowingly dangerous and wicked way; that reasoning supported the judge's placement in category B.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court granted leave to refer because, on the material before it, the sentencing judge had erred in the categorisation and resulting sentence. The court proceeded in a structured way consistent with the offence guidance and the practice of using an offence-specific guideline as a cross-check.

First, the court considered the Sentencing Council offence-specific guideline for causing death by careless driving while under the influence (the careless-driving guideline) as a short cross-check. The court explained that the careless-driving guideline differentiates culpability A, B and C and has harm categories tied to drug quantities. It noted that for that careless-driving guideline, culpability A (with the relevant harm category for the level of THC detected) has a starting point of 9 years and a category range of 6–12 years. The court then noted the corresponding figures for causing death by dangerous driving: culpability A a 12-year starting point (range 8–18 years) and culpability B a 6-year starting point (range 4–9 years). That comparison demonstrated, in the court's view, why the original sentence was too low.

The court then analysed the factors relevant to categorisation. It accepted the Applicant's identification of three culpability-A features and evaluated them against the evidence:

• Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road / disregard for risk: the Defendant deliberately attended for work and did not stop after visibly startling himself on departure from the depot; he continued to drive despite obvious signs of sleepiness, indicating disregard for the risk to others over the driving period.
• Prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of dangerous driving: the CCTV and witness accounts showed repeated nodding, overcorrection and erratic driving over the journey such that the court concluded the Defendant must have been aware of his impaired state yet continued to drive in a manner that was dangerous for a sustained period.
• Lack of attention to driving for a substantial period: the court treated the period of approximately 13 minutes from departure to the collision as a substantial timeframe during which the Defendant's attention was deficient, evidenced by yawning, nodding and falling asleep on multiple occasions.

The court acknowledged overlap between these culpability-A features and category-B features (notably impairment by drugs and deprivation of adequate sleep). Where factors pointed in different directions across categories, the court's task was to weigh them to decide which category most resembled the offender's case. The court concluded that, on balance, the case plainly fell within culpability A rather than culpability B.

Having determined culpability A, the court applied the step-wise approach in the guideline context. It started from the culpability-A starting point for causing death by dangerous driving (12 years) but adjusted down to reflect the presence of some culpability-B factors, arriving at a working figure of 10 years. The court then considered aggravating and mitigating features:

• Aggravating factors: the Vulnerable Victim (a child), the fact the Defendant was driving a public service vehicle (special responsibility), and that he was subject to a court order; the court increased the sentence by 2 years to 12 years to reflect these important aggravations.
• Mitigating factors: clear remorse, attempts to assist the Victim, the Defendant's youth and immaturity, and the strong character references; the court gave credit of 2 years for mitigation, reducing the figure to 10 years.

The court then applied full credit for the early guilty plea (one-third reduction), resulting in a final sentence for count 1 (causing death by dangerous driving) of 6 years 8 months. The court also recalculated the driving disqualification: the original disqualification was 5 years; with the adjusted custodial calculation the court determined the appropriate extension period (reflecting that the Defendant will serve half the sentence in custody) to be 3 years 4 months, producing an overall driving disqualification of 8 years 4 months (comprised of the 5-year period plus the 3 years 4 months extension).

Throughout its analysis, the court noted that the sentencing judge had not been referred to the careless-driving offence-specific guideline but that the appellate court could have measured regard to it as a cross-check. The court recorded the parties' competing submissions on that point and acknowledged that both sides had arguable points on the relevance and application of the guidance. The ultimate conclusion turned on the assessment of the factual features against the culpability categories and on the application of the guideline's step-wise methodology.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Reference was granted to the extent explained below. The court increased the sentence on count 1 (causing death by dangerous driving) to 6 years 8 months after applying the adjustments and plea credit described above, and amended the driving disqualification to an overall period of 8 years 4 months (5 years disqualification plus a 3 years 4 months extension period).

Implications:

• Direct effect on the parties: the Defendant's custodial exposure in respect of count 1 was increased from the judge's effective one-count figure to 6 years 8 months; the Defendant's driving disqualification was increased to a total of 8 years 4 months. These are the concrete consequences of the Reference succeeding to that extent.
• Broader legal effect: the opinion applied existing Sentencing Council guidance and used an offence-specific guideline as a cross-check in the context of a dangerous-driving sentence. The decision is an application of guidance to particular facts; the opinion does not purport to create a new legal precedent beyond that context.

This summary is based exclusively on the material contained in the provided opinion and is fully anonymised in accordance with the instructions supplied. If specific sections of the original opinion contained no material (for example, no cited case law), a brief standard note has been inserted in place of that content.