[2025] EWCA Crim 1257

The judge's sentencing remarks

In his sentencing remarks the judge said:

"Four people were physically affected by what you did on 9^th April, but the effect of what you did extended so far beyond that. So many people’s lives have been totally ruined by what was, on that particular occasion, a selfish disregard for anyone’s safety in your driving. You drove on what is not the easiest of roads far too fast... People in the car told you to slow down. You were holding a vape in your hand, so driving effectively one-handed at ridiculously high speeds: 90 miles an hour at some stage. Certainly, if not at that stage of the crash, far too fast. And that is why the crash occurred, because you could not control that vehicle."

The judge said that it would offend the principles of justice if he were not to send the appellant to prison for a considerable period of time. He said it was also important to pass such a significant sentence not only to punish the appellant but to deter other young people who attempted to drive like this, and to make them think twice about the prospect of going to prison for a long time.

In relation to the level of credit for his guilty pleas the judge said:

"I have listened with great care to Ms White’s eloquent submissions on your behalf and to whether or not I could give you more than 25 per cent credit, which is the credit which is attracted following a guilty plea at the plea and trial preparation hearing. I have given some thought to that. You had a considerable period of time between the date of this crash and your appearance in the magistrates’ court. I have no doubt that you will know what your driving was, and so you should have indicated the guilty plea

in the magistrates’ court. You would have got one third credit... And so despite those eloquent submissions, in my judgment, one quarter credit is what you should receive."

The judge referred to the appellant's young age, just 20 at the time of the collision and 21 at the date of sentence, and the guidance from this court on the approach to sentencing young people in the case of R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. Applying the Sentencing Council guideline for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the judge found that this plainly fell firmly into high culpability, level A. The judge said he had no doubt that the appellant was doing his best to catch up with the driver ahead of him. The appellant was showing off and driving far too fast. There was prolonged use of an electronic device. The judge said he found it quite astonishing that the appellant had been driving effectively with two fingers on the steering wheel, holding a vape at the same time in the other hand. There was a persistent disregard of the warnings of others.

The guideline sentencing range for a category A offence of causing death by dangerous driving is 8 to 18 years' custody, with a starting point of 12 years. The judge considered the aggravating factor of the three offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The judge was satisfied that this feature on its own took the provisional sentence to the top of the bracket, 18 years.

The judge then considered the features of mitigation. First, the appellant's lack of previous convictions and his good character, attested to by the bundle of references. Second, the appellant's young age at the time of the offence. Third, the mental health issues arising from growing up with Noonan’s syndrome. Fourth, the appellant's genuine remorse. All these features, the judge said, led him to reduce the provisional sentence of 18 years after trial to 14 years. After 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea the sentence on count 1 would therefore be 10½ years' imprisonment.

In respect of each of the counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving there would be concurrent sentences of 3 years' imprisonment. The judge imposed a mandatory disqualification of 5 years which he extended by 7 years to 12 years so that it would commence on the appellant's release from prison.