Judicial Opinion — Structured and Anonymized Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The summary is of a sentence appeal application heard by Judge Lavender. The court made an anonymity order to protect a victim who is a child; while that child is under 18 the court prohibited publication of any matter likely to identify him. The court indicated that it will refer to the child as Victim C, to his late mother as Victim A and to her partner as Victim B.

The Appellant applied for an extension of time to seek, and for leave to bring, an appeal against sentences imposed on 4 October 2024 by the Crown Court at The City. The sentences arose from three offences to which the Appellant had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court (some pleas entered earlier in the magistrates' court):

• an offence of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (victim: Victim A), for which the Appellant was sentenced to 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment;
• an offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (victim: Victim B), for which the Appellant was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment; and
• a further offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving (victim: Victim C), for which the Appellant was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.

All three sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Factual matrix: On 3 April 2023 the Appellant, driving along a busy road in the direction of The City, collided with a car driven by Victim A, who was killed. Passengers were Victim B and the child (Victim C). The collision occurred where double white lines separated opposing traffic lanes; the Appellant was driving on the wrong side of those double white lines in a lane for oncoming traffic. The speed limit was 60 mph; the Appellant's speed was recorded initially at 65 mph and five seconds before collision at 69 mph, and she did not apply her brakes until one second before the collision.

Injuries and impact: Victim A died virtually instantaneously. Victim C suffered extensive and life-changing injuries (multiple brain bleeds, neck and spine fractures, rib fractures, lung contusions, liver laceration, bowel injuries, and other severe consequences requiring long-term treatment). Victim B sustained fractures to two bones in a hand and chest/lung injuries, resulting in permanent reduction in hand function and significant time off work. Another driver was also injured.

Procedural note: the single judge referred the Appellant's applications (extension of time and, if permitted, leave to appeal) to the full court. The stated reason for delay in commencing the appeal was the need to secure funding for the Appellant's representation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant an extension of time to permit the Appellant to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the sole ground that the custodial sentence for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving was manifestly excessive, specifically that the judge erred in assessing culpability and in the downward adjustment within the category range.
3. Whether, in light of concurrent sentencing for multiple offences, the overall sentence was disproportionate when all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors are considered together.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant sought an extension of time, explaining delay was caused by the need to obtain funding for representation.
• The sole substantive ground advanced was that the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was manifestly excessive. It was submitted that the offence should have been placed at or towards the bottom of the range for a category A offence because there was only one category A factor present (an obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre).
• The Appellant relied on mitigation including remorse, adverse physical and mental health (including an expert psychologist's opinion of post‑traumatic stress and that imprisonment would have a significantly adverse effect), a history of abuse in The State during youth, numerous positive character references, a good driving record and absence of relevant or recent convictions.

Other Submissions

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's or respondent's separate submissions directed to the issues; the court's reasoning addresses the judge's sentencing exercise and the Appellant's stated grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by examining the factual circumstances, the sentencing judge's approach to categorisation under the relevant sentencing guideline for dangerous driving, and the Appellant's submissions on manifest excess.

Key elements of the court's analytical process (expressed in the opinion):

• Category placements and guideline starting points were identified from the sentencing exercise: the causing death offence was in category A with a starting point of 12 years' custody (range 8–18 years); the causing serious injury offence concerning Victim C was category 1A with a starting point of 4 years (range 3–5 years); and the offence concerning Victim B was category 2A with a starting point of 3 years (range 2–4 years).
• The judge treated the injuries caused to others as aggravating factors in relation to the causing death offence because he imposed concurrent sentences; that meant the judge was, in effect, considering a total effective sentence for all three offences together.
• The judge's numerical adjustments were recited by the court: he reduced the starting point of 12 years to 11 years because there was only one category A factor; increased that to 13 years to account for aggravating matters; and then reduced it back to 11 years for mitigating factors. The judge further reduced each sentence by one-third to reflect the Appellant's guilty pleas, yielding the concurrent sentences actually imposed (which resulted in an effective headline sentence of 7 years and 4 months for the causing death offence).
• The court emphasised that a sentencing judge is not required to attribute precise numerical values to each individual factor. Citing R v Hallam and R v Ratcliffe, the court explained that the proper inquiry on appeal is whether the final sentence was manifestly excessive, not whether the judge recorded particular arithmetic adjustments for discrete factors.
• In assessing the Appellant's claim that the sentence should have been at or near the bottom of the category range because only one category A factor existed, the court accepted that that circumstance called for a reduction in sentence but explained that it was not helpful to isolate a specific numerical discount to that factor alone. Instead the court considered that factor together with all aggravating and mitigating features, in particular the combined weight of three offences which merited substantial sentences independently before concurrency and the guilty-plea reduction.
• On the facts recited (wrong side of double white lines, excessive speed, late braking, severity of injuries and death, continuing and long-term harm to Victim C), the court concluded that it was not arguable that the sentence of 7 years and 4 months was manifestly excessive.
• Having determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit, the court refused leave to appeal and also refused the extension of time for bringing the appeal, concluding that extending time would serve no purpose.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court refused leave to appeal against sentence and refused the extension of time to bring the appeal.

Implications:

• The direct consequence is that the sentences imposed by the Crown Court remain in force and are not disturbed by this application.
• The court declined to grant an extension of time because the proposed appeal was not arguable on the basis advanced; accordingly no appellate review of the sentence was permitted.
• The opinion indicates no intention to establish a new principle of law; the court applied existing authorities on sentencing explanation and the standard of review (manifest excess) and did not depart from or create fresh precedent.

Additional Notes

The summary above is drawn solely from the content of the provided opinion. Where the opinion did not include detailed submissions from the respondent/prosecution or extensive analysis beyond what is recorded, those matters have not been supplemented or inferred.