Courtney, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 22, was convicted after a guilty plea to causing serious injury by dangerous driving contrary to section 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1998. The conviction followed events on the evening of 18 January 2025 when, on a road between The City and The City, a group had gathered to watch unlawful competitive racing. The prosecution's case was that the Appellant joined the racing on arrival, driving at speeds of at least 80 mph in a 70 mph limit, lost control and collided with the vehicle in front. The front seat passenger of that vehicle sustained a fractured collarbone requiring surgery under general anaesthetic, significant pain and restriction, and a permanent scar causing particular distress; the driver suffered lesser injuries.

At a Newton hearing the sentencing judge rejected the Appellant's account that he had accidentally become caught up in the racing and found that he had joined in the racing. On 4 March 2026 at The City Crown Court the Appellant was sentenced to 18 months' immediate imprisonment following a pre-credit sentence of two years reduced to 18 months after a 25% plea credit. With leave of the single judge the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal contending the sentence was manifestly excessive and that it should have been suspended; he also challenged the driving disqualification period.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive and whether the custodial term should instead have been suspended.
2. Whether the ancillary order disqualifying the Appellant from driving for two years with a nine-month extension was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in placing culpability in category A of the sentencing guideline; culpability should have been in category B or between A and B, and too much weight was given to the factor of racing.
• On the question of suspension, the judge should have concluded the balance of factors (including youth, lack of previous convictions, positive good character and realistic prospects of rehabilitation) favoured a suspended sentence rather than immediate custody.
• If the court reduced or suspended the sentence, the driving disqualification of two years with a nine-month extension was excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court upheld the sentencing judge's factual findings from the Newton hearing that the Appellant had joined in racing or competitive driving against another vehicle. Applying the relevant sentencing guideline, the judge placed culpability in category A with harm in category 2, yielding a starting point of three years and a category range of two to four years. The judge identified the presence of a passenger in the Appellant's vehicle as an aggravating factor and significant mitigation (youth, absence of previous convictions, positive character, remorse). The judge reduced the starting point to two years pre-plea credit, then applied a 25% credit for plea (reduced from one-third due to findings at the Newton hearing), producing an 18-month sentence.

On suspension, the judge considered guideline factors favouring suspension—realistic prospect of rehabilitation, low risk of reoffending, mitigation close to the guideline threshold, and the state of the prison estate—but concluded that the gravity of the offending and the need for appropriate punishment required immediate custody. The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the judge's assessment, concluding the judge had carefully balanced the relevant factors and reasonably reached the decision to impose immediate custody. The Court also found no basis to disturb the driving disqualification period.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the 18 months' immediate imprisonment and the driving disqualification of two years with a nine-month extension.

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentence and ancillary disqualification remain in force. The Court indicated that the judge's application of the sentencing guideline and assessment of suspension were correct; the decision does not establish a new legal precedent beyond affirming those applications in this case.