Factual and Procedural Background
This was an appeal against sentence following permission granted by a single judge. Appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and to failing to provide a breath specimen, contrary to section 7(6) of that Act. [1][2]
Appellant had driven the wrong way along a motorway carriageway during the early hours, failed to stop for police vehicles, reached approximately 75 mph, and drove towards a police vehicle that had to take evasive action. Appellant was subsequently arrested. [3][4]
The sentencing court imposed 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with an unpaid work requirement, and disqualified Appellant from driving for 18 months for dangerous driving. A further 12-month disqualification was imposed for the specimen offence, without a separate penalty. [5]
Appellant had no previous convictions and was a professional athlete with substantial charitable and community involvement. [6][7][8]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether imposing a custodial sentence was wrong in principle. [9]
- Whether the 15-month custodial sentence was manifestly excessive. [9]
- Whether the 18-month driving disqualification was manifestly excessive. [9]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Appellant had been on bail for three years, had not reoffended, and had exemplary character, including extensive charitable work. [10][8]
- The offence was unexplained, and Appellant believed that his drink may have been spiked. [11][12]
- The offence was accepted to fall within category A2, with a sentencing range from a high-level community order to 18 months’ imprisonment and a 36-week starting point. [11]
- The pre-sentence report recommended a community order, and it was difficult to determine from the sentencing remarks how much credit had been given for the guilty plea. [11]
- The driving disqualification should be reduced because its purpose is forward-looking public protection and its impact on Appellant was significant. [13][14]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted that Appellant otherwise had admirable character and had made substantial contributions to society. Nevertheless, it considered the driving exceptionally dangerous. Appellant had driven against the flow of traffic on a busy motorway, evaded police attempts to stop him, and created a serious risk of catastrophic consequences. [12][15]
The Court considered the avoidance of police vehicles to be an aggravating factor. It also concluded that the sentencing judge had taken account of the guilty plea and had given some discount, even though the sentencing remarks were sparse. [15][16]
The Court held that a sentence near the statutory maximum could have been justified after trial. Accordingly, the 15-month custodial term was within the proper sentencing range and was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. [16][17][18]
As to disqualification, the Court noted that section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 generally requires at least 12 months’ disqualification for dangerous driving absent special reasons. Although an 18-month period would ordinarily have been upheld, Appellant had already been disqualified for 14 months and one week under an interim order. The Court therefore considered a shorter total period appropriate in the particular circumstances. [14][19]
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed in part. The custodial sentence was upheld, but the dangerous-driving disqualification was reduced from 18 months to 15 months. [18][20]
The direct consequence was that Appellant had approximately three further weeks of disqualification before being permitted to drive again, subject to passing an extended retest. [20]
No broader implications or new precedent are identified in the opinion.