[2025] EWCA Crim 1257

Discussion and conclusion

We have considered all these submissions very carefully and we are extremely grateful to both counsel for their focused submissions.

In relation to the question of credit for plea, we note that the judge clearly attached considerable importance to and based his decision on the fact that after this fatal accident 14 months had elapsed before the first hearing in the magistrates' court, during which time there had been ample time for the appellant to reflect on his driving. As the judge put it:

"I have no doubt that you will know what your driving was…".

We think the judge was entitled and correct to regard this as a very important factor. The judge was not provided with the detailed information about the precise sequence of events that we have been, but that does not take away from the force of the fundamental point which the judge considered to be decisive, namely that there had been ample opportunity for the appellant to recall his driving. The circumstances of the crash itself, the damage to the vehicle and its consequences were sufficient to enable the appellant to realise and acknowledge that what he had done amounted to dangerous driving, with the benefit of any necessary legal advice as to what amounts to dangerous driving as a matter of law.

We note the observation in the pre-sentence report that although there was some suggestion that the appellant had a lack of memory for the events in question, it may also have been the case that the appellant was not wanting to acknowledge what he knew to have been wholly dangerous driving on his part. There was no medical evidence to support any suggestion of amnesia, and we cannot see that his mild learning disability would have affected his ability to understand and know what he had done. He knew what he had done.

Applying paragraph F1 of the guideline, like the judge, we do not accept that this was a case in which it was necessary to have received advice and have sight of evidence (here specifically the multi-media presentation) in order to understand whether the appellant was, in fact and law, guilty of the offence charged. In our judgment, and on careful examination, we are satisfied that there was no error of principle in the judge's conclusion. It was a conclusion that was open to him on the material before him including the submissions, at that stage, made by Ms White. It was a conclusion that he was fully entitled to reach. We are satisfied that the appropriate level of credit was 25 per cent.

Turning to the length of the sentence, we note there has been no challenge to the judge's assessment that a provisional sentence of 18 years was appropriate to reflect the grossly aggravating factor of serious injury caused to the three other passengers. As a matter of law those sentences had to be concurrent because they all arose from one and the same piece of dangerous driving but the seriousness of the injuries caused to three other passengers, as well as causing the death of Felix Davies, meant that a very substantial uplift was called for within the guidelines. We observe that, standing alone, each of those offences would have merited a sentence of at least 4 years before credit for plea.

The only remaining question therefore is whether the judge made a sufficient reduction for the factors reducing seriousness and reflecting personal mitigation as set out in the guidelines. It is plain to us from the judge's sentencing remarks that he had in mind all the factors relied upon, even if he did not articulate each of them individually in the precise terms of the guideline. For example, the judge was well aware that the appellant had made efforts to assist or seek assistance for the injured passengers, that he had a clean driving record, and that he and the deceased were close friends. The judge did not mention these specifically in his sentencing remarks but he had just listened to Ms White’s plea in mitigation, no doubt emphasising all relevant matters, and would have had them well in mind. They were apparent anyway from the bundle of references and from the pre-sentence report.

The judge made a reduction of 4 years to reflect all the mitigating factors in this case. We think that was quite sufficient in all the circumstances. We are satisfied that the judge gave appropriate weight to all the mitigating factors.

For all these reasons, and despite Ms White's powerful and tenacious submissions, we are not persuaded that this sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]