Santos, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 28, was sentenced on 10 February 2026 in the Crown Court at The City following four committals from The Magistrates' Court. The total custodial sentence imposed was 20 months for multiple offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988: several counts of drug driving (s.5A) of varying terms, a lead count of dangerous driving (s.2) for which 20 months was imposed, and associated counts (driving while disqualified, driving without insurance, driving while unfit through drugs) for which no separate penalties were imposed. The Appellant was disqualified from driving for a period addressed in the judgment. With the leave of a single judge, the Appellant appealed, contending the imprisonment sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was wrong in principle for the sentencing judge to identify a notional pre-plea (pre-credit) sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum for the lead offence (dangerous driving).
2. Whether the overall custodial sentence (20 months) was manifestly excessive and/or should have been suspended in favour of a community disposal (including a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Recorder erred in adopting a notional pre-credit sentence of 30 months — a 12-month uplift above the top of the applicable category range (18 months) — and in principle it was impermissible to set a pre-credit starting point exceeding the statutory maximum of two years for dangerous driving.
• The Recorder wrongly treated certain matters as aggravating (notably 'unacceptable driving' and antecedents) when they were either encompassed by the offence or irrelevant; the absence of relevant recent convictions should have been treated as mitigation.
• Even if a higher notional sentence were proper, with full one-third credit for plea a lawful post-credit custodial sentence could not have exceeded 16 months.
• The sentence should have been suspended: the PSR and a DRR assessment demonstrated realistic prospects of rehabilitation in the community; the Appellant's prior period of prolonged abstinence and personal mitigation weighed in favour of suspension; he had already served 82 days on remand, contributing significant punitive effect.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by accepting that R v Carroll establishes that a pre-credit notional sentence should not exceed the statutory maximum for the offence. It accepted that the Recorder erred in treating 'unacceptable driving' as an aggravating factor distinct from the offence's categorisation, but did not consider the Recorder was wrong to give marginal weight to the Appellant's previous convictions. The Court analysed the factual concatenation of offences: repeated episodes of drug-impaired driving on 30 July 2025 (two separate events), a crash on 24 September 2025 with positive drug indicators and paraphernalia, and a prolonged, high-speed motorway pursuit on 21 November 2025 with highly dangerous manoeuvres and a pregnant passenger. The PSR and DRR evidence showed factors in mitigation and some prospect of community rehabilitation, but the Court concluded the seriousness and repeated nature of the offending, and the high risk of serious harm to the public, compelled immediate custody.

Having found the Recorder's overall notional pre-credit figure of 30 months should not have been structured as a notional sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for the dangerous driving offence, the Court nonetheless considered totality. It concluded that the overall level of punishment chosen by the Recorder (a notional 30 months pre-credit, reduced to 20 months after one-third credit) was not inappropriate for the aggregate offending. The Court therefore restructured the individual sentences to produce the same overall custodial effect while correcting the legal error identified. The Court also held the Recorder should have more expressly considered the definitive guideline on suspension, but on balance concluded the factors favouring immediate custody outweighed those favouring suspension.

Finally, the Court adjusted the driving disqualification calculation pursuant to ss.35A and 35B Road Traffic Offenders Act, correcting an apparent error in the recorded total disqualification period.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART.

Holding: The Court allowed the appeal only to the extent of restructuring the sentences to correct the identified error while preserving the overall custodial effect. Concretely, the Court ordered an increase of one drug-driving sentence from 3 to 4 months (committal no. CZ1ZIGWCQB) and a reduction of the dangerous driving sentence from 20 months to 16 months, with the restructured ordering described in the judgment; the total custodial term remained 20 months. The Court also revised the composition of the driving disqualification period (resulting in a total disqualification of 46 months as recorded and corrected under ss.35A and 35B).

Implications: The direct effects are the restructured individual sentences and the corrected disqualification computation; the appeal was not allowed so as to suspend the custodial term. The decision applies established principle (R v Carroll) regarding pre-credit starting points and does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond those principles; it emphasises the need for sentencers to consider suspension guidelines expressly and to respect statutory maxima when identifying pre-credit notional sentences.