Summary of the Opinion by Judge Tipples

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from convictions entered in the Crown Court in The City. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 4 September 2023 to two counts of causing death by careless driving when over the prescribed limit for drugs (counts 2 and 3) and one count of possession of a Class A drug (count 4). No evidence was offered on count 1 (causing death by dangerous driving) and a not guilty verdict was entered on that count. The pleas were entered after pre-trial and preparation hearings and before trial listing.

On 23 October 2023 Judge Statman sentenced the Appellant on count 2 to an extended sentence totalling 14 years (12 years custodial term plus a 2 year extended licence). The same sentence was imposed on count 3 to run concurrently, and a concurrent 12 month imprisonment sentence was imposed on count 4. The Appellant was disqualified from driving for 17 years on counts 2 and 3 (an 8 year discretionary period plus a 9 year extension period until passing an extended test). Deprivation orders were made for drugs and Vehicle A, and a victim surcharge was imposed.

The factual matrix was that a 10‑year‑old child (referred to below as the Victim (Child)) was killed after being struck by the Appellant's vehicle on The Road. CCTV evidence showed the Victim running across the road and the collision occurring at approximately two minutes after the Victim began crossing. The posted speed limit was 30 mph; CCTV analysis indicated the Appellant was travelling between 44 and 47 mph immediately before impact. Emergency services attended; the Victim suffered catastrophic injuries and died two days later at The Hospital.

The Appellant remained at the scene. Witness accounts described him as distressed. A preliminary impairment test performed by police was poor. A blood sample given about five hours after the collision contained cocaine and benzoylecgonine at levels substantially above the statutory limits. A quantity of cocaine (57.8 grams) was found in the passenger footwell of Vehicle A.

Post‑collision interviews produced an account in which the Appellant said he had not seen the Victim and denied speeding or mobile phone use; on a later occasion he declined to answer questions. Expert toxicology evidence (Attorney Berry) estimated that the blood reading at five hours post‑collision implied a substantially higher reading at the time of impact, consistent with recent substantial cocaine consumption. A prosecution forensic collision expert (referred to in the opinion) concluded the Appellant's reaction time was "impeccable" and could not have been faster.

Evidence from the Appellant's optician and from a consultant ophthalmologist at The Hospital indicated the Appellant's eyesight did not meet The Agency's standards for driving without glasses; an optician had referred him urgently to hospital shortly before the collision. The Appellant drove again while over the prescribed limit on two occasions after the collision and was charged for those offences later.

At sentence the trial judge identified aggravating and mitigating factors, found the Appellant dangerous and imposed extended custodial sentences. The Appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) misclassification in culpability category A under the relevant Sentencing Guideline; (2) excessive starting point/manifestly excessive sentence; and (3) error in principle in imposing an extended sentence (dangerousness finding).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge was correct to classify the offence in culpability Category A under the Sentencing Council guideline for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drugs (i.e., whether the facts justified Category A rather than Category B).
2. Whether the sentencing starting point and resultant custodial sentence were manifestly excessive given the facts, mitigation and guilty plea credit.
3. Whether there was an evidential basis to find the Appellant "dangerous" for the purposes of imposing an extended sentence (and thus whether the extended sentence was justified in principle).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge's placement of the case in culpability Category A was incorrect: the judge made no finding that the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving and did not find any culpability B factor to be an "extreme example". The proper classification was Category B (starting point 9 years, category range 6–12 years).
• The driving did not demonstrate substantial impairment despite the high drug readings; the expert evidence described reaction time as "impeccable". The Appellant remained at the scene. Taken together with mitigating features (including mental health and guilty plea), a starting point of 12 years (increased to 14 years) was too high and manifestly excessive.
• The extended sentence was wrongly imposed because the pre‑sentence report relied on an incorrect factual assumption (that the Appellant had been driving whilst disqualified), which skewed the probation officer's risk assessment and there was therefore no proper evidential basis for finding the Appellant dangerous; a determinate sentence would be sufficient.

Crown's Arguments

• The judge was entitled to place the case in Category A: the combination of factors (a brief but avoidable distraction, driving at 47 mph in a 30 mph zone, and driving with eyesight far below The Agency's minimum) justified Category A classification or equating an extreme example of a Category B factor with an aggregation of multiple Category B factors.
• The judge's overall approach to identifying the appropriate sentence, including his evaluation of aggravating and mitigating features, could not be faulted.
• The judge was entitled to find the Appellant dangerous on the evidence before him and to impose an extended sentence accordingly.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court (Judge Tipples) analysed the sentencing exercise by reference to the Sentencing Council guideline for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The guideline requires a two‑step assessment: (1) determine the standard of driving (and place the offender in the appropriate culpability category by weighting factors that may fall under different levels of culpability), and (2) consider factors relevant to the presence of drugs/alcohol or failure to provide a sample to identify the appropriate offence category and starting point.

The court first reviewed the trial judge's factual findings and the material (including CCTV, expert reports and the sentencing remarks). The appellate court agreed with the trial judge that two culpability B factors were properly identified: (a) driving at a speed inappropriate for the prevailing road conditions and (b) driving impaired due to poor eyesight in disregard of medical advice. The appellate court noted, however, that the trial judge made no finding that the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving and that neither of the identified culpability B factors had been found to be "extreme examples" by the trial judge.

The appellate court emphasised that the agreed expert evidence established the Appellant "could not have reacted any faster than he did" and that the speed of the Appellant was therefore determinative of culpability. In these circumstances, the appellate court concluded it was wrong to aggregate two ordinary (non‑extreme) culpability B factors and thereby place the case into culpability A. Although the court acknowledged that multiple factors in some cases may justify moving to a higher category, it held this was not such a case.

Accordingly, the appellate court determined the correct starting point was the Category B starting point of 9 years' custody (category range 6–12 years). The court recognised aggravating factors (the Victim's vulnerability as a child and the presence of Class A drugs in the vehicle) and also set out personal mitigation (no previous convictions; mental health difficulties including attempted suicide; guilty plea credit; and family letters). After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court adjusted the starting point upward to 10 years' custody, then applied a 15% reduction for the late guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence figure of 8 years and 6 months' custody.

On the dangerousness/extended sentence ground, the appellate court analysed the pre‑sentence report. It identified a material error in that report: the probation officer's assessment that the Appellant had been driving whilst disqualified was incorrect, and that error had fed into an assessment that the Appellant's risk of further offending was high. Given that the Appellant had otherwise been categorised as having a low likelihood of committing a seriously harmful offence within the next two years, the court held the erroneous material in the pre‑sentence report meant there was no proper evidential basis to support a finding of dangerousness. The extended sentence imposed by the trial judge therefore lacked sufficient foundation.

On that basis the appellate court quashed the extended sentence on count 2 and the concurrent extended sentence on count 3 and substituted determinate custodial sentences of 8 years 6 months on each of counts 2 and 3, to be served concurrently. It also adjusted the driving disqualification period on counts 2 and 3 to 13 years 8 months (an 8 year discretionary period plus a 5 year 8 month extension under the relevant statutory provision and until passing an extended test). The opinion records that the sentence for possession of Class A drugs on count 4 remained concurrent.

Holding and Implications

CORE RULING: The appeal was allowed in part. The appellate court quashed the extended sentences imposed by the trial judge on counts 2 and 3 and substituted determinate concurrent custodial sentences of 8 years 6 months on each count. The court also quashed the extended licence component imposed previously and re‑fixed the driving disqualification to 13 years 8 months (8 years discretionary plus a 5 year 8 month extension) and until the passing of an extended driving test. The sentence on count 4 remained a concurrent custodial term.

Implications for the parties:

• The Appellant's overall custody term on counts 2 and 3 was reduced from an extended sentence of 14 years (12 years custody + 2 year extended licence) to a determinate custodial sentence of 8 years 6 months (concurrent on counts 2 and 3).
• The extended sentence and the dangerousness finding were quashed because a significant factual error in the pre‑sentence report undermined the evidential basis for that finding.
• The driving disqualification period was reduced and re‑specified as set out above; the deprivation orders and victim surcharge imposed at first instance are not addressed further in the opinion.

The opinion does not purport to create a new binding precedent; its effect is to correct the sentencing exercise in this case by re‑classifying culpability, adjusting the starting point and sentence length, and removing the extended sentence where the factual basis for dangerousness was defective.