Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant appealed against a sentence imposed after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The Crown Court sentenced him to 38 months’ imprisonment, disqualified him from driving for 55 months, and required him to pass an extended driving test before driving again. No separate penalty was imposed for an alternative count of causing serious injury by careless and inconsiderate driving. [1][2][3]
The collision occurred on a winding rural road after the Appellant attempted to overtake another vehicle near a blind bend. He lost control and collided head-on with a vehicle travelling correctly on its side of the road. Two occupants of that vehicle were injured, one seriously and with lasting physical and psychological consequences. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge wrongly placed the offending in culpability category A1 rather than category B2. [12][13]
- Whether, even if category A1 applied, the sentence was manifestly excessive. [14][15]
- Whether the sentence should have been reduced to three years or less and suspended. [16][17]
- Whether imposing no separate penalty for the alternative lesser offence was the correct approach. [18][19]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The offending should have been placed in category B2 rather than category A1. [12][13]
- The harm should not have been placed in category 1, which the Appellant submitted should be reserved for the very worst permanent and irreversible injuries. [20]
- A sentence of 40 months before guilty-plea credit was excessive, having regard to the absence of previous convictions, good driving record, remorse, and alleged inexperience. [21][22]
- The sentence should have been reduced to three years or less and suspended. [16][23]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Howdle (Nicholas John) [2025] EWCA Crim 789 |
Classification of harm in a serious-injury dangerous-driving case. |
The Court distinguished the decision because it concerned different facts and did not show that the sentencing judge’s conclusion was wrong. [24] |
| R v Butler [2023] EWCA Crim 676; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 46 |
Where alternative offences are charged and the defendant pleads guilty to the lesser offence but is convicted of the more serious offence, the lesser offence should ordinarily lie on the file rather than receive no separate penalty. [25][26][27][28] |
The Court agreed that this was the correct approach, but did not need to determine whether the contrary practice was unlawful. [29][19] |
| R v Cole [1965] 2 QB 388 |
A guilty plea does not amount to a conviction until sentence is passed; the practice avoids convictions for two alternative offences arising from the same conduct. [28] |
The principle supported recording the lesser offence as lying on the file where the more serious alternative resulted in conviction. [28] |
| R v Bebbington (1978) 67 Cr App R 285 |
Approval of the approach concerning alternative offences and no separate penalty. |
The Court identified it as an authority approving the approach in Butler. [29] |
| R v Ismail [2019] EWCA 290 |
Further approval of the approach concerning alternative offences. |
The Court cited it as supporting the approach in Butler. [29] |
| R v Bottarelli [2026] EWCA Crim 383 |
Further approval of the correct treatment of alternative offences. |
The Court cited it as an additional authority approving the approach. [29] |
| R v Ford [2026] EWCA Crim 666 |
Imposing no separate penalty for the lesser offence is preferable practice, but does not necessarily produce an unlawful sentence. |
The Court relied on this distinction in declining to decide whether the sentencing approach was unlawful or merely incorrect. [29][19] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to depart from the parties’ shared submission that the case fell within category B2. The judge had heard evidence from three prosecution witnesses and was well placed to assess the circumstances. [13][30]
The offending properly fell within culpability category A because it involved an obviously highly dangerous overtaking manoeuvre and a speed highly inappropriate for the road conditions. The Appellant attempted to overtake on a winding single-carriageway road near a blind bend and lost control when he abandoned the manoeuvre. The category B factors were not present. [31][32]
The Court also upheld harm category 1. The victim suffered permanent and substantial effects on ordinary activities, including walking, standing, cleaning the house, driving alone, and psychological wellbeing. The fact that she could stand briefly while giving evidence, or was retired, did not undermine that conclusion. [33][34][35][36]
The sentence was not manifestly excessive. The category A1 starting point was four years, with a range of three to five years. A sentence of 40 months before credit was near the bottom of that range, notwithstanding that there were two injured victims. [15]
The sentencing judge had considered the Appellant’s lack of previous convictions, driving record, remorse, age, and mitigation. The judge was entitled to regard the offending as irresponsible rather than merely inexperienced, particularly because the Appellant did not admit guilt until after three witnesses had given evidence. [22][37][17]
Because a sentence exceeding three years was justified, suspension was unavailable. The sentencing judge had also considered, but rejected, reducing the sentence to 36 months for suspension. [23]
Regarding the alternative offence, the Court stated that the better practice was to order the lesser offence to lie on the file. However, the issue was not raised in the appeal and no practical consequence followed because the absence of a separate penalty did not increase the sentence. [18][29][19]
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment and the related driving disqualification. [23][38]
The Court also confirmed that, where alternative offences arise from the same conduct, the lesser offence should ordinarily lie on the file after conviction for the more serious offence, although it did not decide whether the contrary approach was unlawful in this case. [29][19]