Summary of Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed with leave against sentence imposed by Judge Hickey at the Crown Court on 29 January 2026. The Appellant pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving contrary to s.2C Road Traffic Act 1988. The Crown Court imposed a four month custodial sentence, suspended for two years (a stand-alone suspended sentence order), disqualified the Appellant from driving for the mandatory one year and imposed the statutory surcharge.

The incident occurred on the early morning of 24 November 2022 on a 60 mph national speed limit road (referred to herein as [Number] Main Street) between locations described in the opinion as Harrogate and York (hereinafter "The City"). The Appellant was driving a Volkswagen Golf, undertook an overtaking manoeuvre past a car and then an HGV, accelerated to between 70 and 75 mph and, while alongside the HGV, collided with an oncoming motorcyclist (the Victim). The Victim sustained very serious injuries including injuries to the right leg that led to a below-knee amputation and ongoing treatment and disability.

There was no prosecution expert; the defence served a road traffic collision report from Attorney Wooller of Company B. The prosecution accepted the defence expert's report. The original charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving was reduced to careless driving shortly before trial. The Appellant was pregnant at the time of sentence. The Appellant had an otherwise exemplary record and strong mitigation evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court erred in imposing a custodial sentence (suspended) rather than a non-custodial disposal (in particular, a fine) for the offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.
2. Alternatively, whether the Judge erred in setting a two year operational period for the suspended sentence (i.e. the appropriateness/length of the suspension period).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The custodial sentence was excessive and, properly applying the sentencing guidelines, a fine should have been imposed instead of custody.
• Because conventional community order elements (unpaid work, rehabilitative requirements) were unsuitable or impractical (given the Appellant's pregnancy and exemplary character), a fine could achieve the purposes of sentencing and custody was not justified.
• Alternatively, if a suspended custodial sentence were appropriate, the two year operational period chosen by the Judge was excessive and should be shorter.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any separate prosecution submissions on sentencing beyond acceptance of the factual and guideline positions referred to by the court.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Judge Stacey delivering the approved judgment) conducted a guideline-based analysis:

• Classification under the Sentencing Council guideline: the offence was agreed to be category B1 with a starting point of 26 weeks' custody and a range from a high level community order to one year's custody.
• Harm assessment: the harm to the Victim was at level 1 (the highest level) given the severe injuries and ongoing disability and treatment.
• Culpability assessment: the Appellant's culpability was level B but towards the lower end of that band—an isolated, single negligent overtaking manoeuvre; not prolonged negligent driving.
• Aggravating/mitigating factors: the only aggravating factor identified was that the Victim was a vulnerable road user (motorcyclist). Significant mitigation included the Appellant's exemplary character, genuine remorse, voluntary work, steady employment, pregnancy at sentencing, and substantial delay in prosecution and reduction of charge from dangerous to careless driving.
• Evidence on visibility: the defence expert's report (accepted by the prosecution) explained that the Victim's motorcycle headlight, though compliant, was relatively dim and would have been difficult to discern in the conditions; this reduced the Appellant's degree of fault because the motorbike was hard to see through no fault of the Victim.
• Availability of community disposals: the pre-sentence report did not recommend rehabilitative community orders; unpaid work was impractical given the Appellant's pregnancy; the probation service had no suitable requirements to propose given the Appellant's character and circumstances.
• Sentencing guidance on alternatives to community orders: the Sentencing Council guidance allows a fine as an alternative to a community order where a fine can achieve the purposes of sentencing (with suggested bands corresponding to community order levels).
• Conclusion of analysis: because the mitigating factors substantially outweighed the single aggravating feature and because conventional community order elements were unavailable or unsuitable, the offence did not pass the custody threshold. A fine would achieve the purposes of sentencing; the original imposition of a custodial sentence (even suspended) was therefore manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED.

Holding:

• The Court quashed the stand-alone suspended custodial sentence.
• The Court substituted a Band F fine of £3,000, with 12 months to pay and 28 days' custody in default.
• The statutory surcharge was to be reduced and amended appropriately.
• The period of driving disqualification imposed by the Crown Court remains unchanged.
• The Court declined to address the second ground (length of the suspension period) as it was unnecessary in light of the primary disposal substituted.

Implications:

• Direct effect: the Appellant's suspended custodial sentence has been replaced by a fine; surcharge amended; disqualification unchanged.
• No new case-law precedent is established by the decision; the Court applied existing Sentencing Council guidelines to the facts. The Court also directed that the factual and expert material (the report prepared by Company B) be drawn to the attention of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority to consider whether headlight regulations remain fit for purpose.

---

Authoring judge in the Court of Appeal: Judge Stacey. Judges sitting: Judge Popplewell, Judge Stacey, Judge Karu. Sentence appealed from: Judge Hickey (Crown Court).