[2025] EWCA Crim 1257

The sentencing hearing

There were victim personal statements from the parents and stepmother of the deceased, Felix Davies. They painted a picture of a loving, supportive hard working, joyful young man. As the judge said in passing sentence, it is difficult even to begin to calculate the grief and loss felt by his family, his friends and the whole community.

There were also up-to-date victim personal statements, written now some 18 months after the collision, from two of the three injured passengers, Isobel Smith and Fin Hares.

Isobel Smith said that the trauma of that day would haunt her for ever. It was still having a huge impact on her mentally, physically and financially. Simply getting into a car brought on anxiety and panic attacks. She had received counselling but still had recurring nightmares and flashbacks. She had been a second year university student at the time. Her examination grades suffered. Despite intensive physiotherapy for her knee and dislocated hip she was still frequently in pain. She had been unable to keep up the employment that provided much needed income to support herself as a student and it had been necessary to take out additional student loans.

Fin Hares said that the trauma and memory of the accident would always remain with him. He continued to struggle daily with grief and loss. He had vivid recurring nightmares. His constant anxiety meant that he found it difficult to make even basic decisions. The physical impact of his injuries still persisted. There was a very high chance he would need a hip replacement and that he would develop arthritis in the next 5 years. He could not breathe properly through his nose which was badly broken. A further operation would probably be necessary. At the time of the accident he was still at school in his final year of sixth form hoping to go to university. His A level examinations started soon after the crash but the pain from his injuries meant that he could only sit some of his examination papers and in consequence his grades suffered. Because he was unfit for a long time to carry on with what was a fairly physical job, he lost a great deal of the income he had hoped to save towards growing university costs.

There was no impact statement from Daniel Kettle whose injuries, as the judge noted, were the worst of all three of the surviving passengers.

As well as ordering a pre-sentence report, the judge had also requested a liaison and diversion court report in view of the appellant's learning disability arising from a childhood diagnosis of Noonan’s syndrome. The appellant had attended mainstream high school but his mild learning disability had been supported by a special educational needs assessment.

The pre-sentence report described the appellant as genuinely remorseful. When interviewed by the probation officer, the appellant agreed that he had been driving at an unacceptable speed although he said he could not recall being asked to slow down. The report queried whether this might be linked to a loss of memory of some aspects of the incident but the probation officer alternatively thought it credible to suggest (as it was put in the report) that the appellant was minimising this aspect of his behaviour as a form of self-preservation due to feelings of shame, remorse and awareness of the negative impact of his behaviour on his victims, their families and his own family. The appellant could recall overtaking another vehicle before the Fiesta went onto the grass verge and struck a tree. The report suggested that immaturity, impulsivity and the desire to fit in with others may have contributed to his poor decision making.

The liaison and diversion report, prepared by a registered mental nurse, described the appellant as a vulnerable young adult with mild learning difficulties but there was no indication of any mental illness.

The appellant had no previous convictions, cautions or reprimands.

The appellant had written a letter himself to the judge expressing his remorse. There was also a bundle of no fewer than 37 character references from members of the appellant's family, from friends of the family, and from people who had worked with him or knew him socially. They all spoke of him in glowing terms as a kind, considerate, helpful and popular young man who had done well in overcoming his disability and who played a full part in family life and the life of his local community.

In advance of the sentencing hearing, prosecution counsel and defence counsel each provided the judge with helpful Sentencing Notes. In her Note, Ms Debra White, on behalf of the appellant, submitted in particular that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the appellant should receive full credit of one-third for his guilty pleas even though a guilty plea at the PTPH would normally attract only 25 per cent credit. Ms White's argument was, and is still today, that although no indication of plea was given on the Better Case Management (BCM) form completed by the appellant's solicitor at the magistrates' court hearing on 25 June 2024, there was a good reason for this. The solicitor had endorsed the form:

"Defence cannot indicate a plea at this stage as they have only seen the IDPC [Initial Disclosure of Prosecution Case] and are missing information to allow them to take full and proper instructions."

In her Sentencing Note, which was the extent of the relevant information placed before the judge, Ms White had said this:

"The matter was adjourned for Mr Wood to appear before Chester Crown Court on 23 July 2024. That hearing was moved administratively to 2 August 2024. On 23 July 2024 a conference took place with Mr Wood and defence counsel. At that stage the defence were not in possession of a playable version of exhibit MM/03. As a consequence a further conference took place on 26 June 2024."

We interpolate that exhibit MM/03 was the multi-media evidence presentation to which we had already referred. The Note continued:

"As a consequence a further conference took place on 26 July 2024. The Crown were notified of Mr Wood's intention to plead guilty on 29 July 2024 prior to the Pre-Trial Preparation Hearing [PTPH]. Mr Wood had a limited recollection of the events of 9 April 2023. It was vital that those that represent Mr Wood were able to view exhibit MM/03 prior to properly advising him. It is submitted that, in these circumstances, consideration ought to be given to affording more than the usual credit applied when a defendant pleads guilty at the PTPH, i.e. more than 25 % credit."

Ms White relies upon the exception set out in section F1 of the relevant Sentencing Council guideline on Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, which provides:

"Where the sentencing court is satisfied that there were particular circumstances which significantly reduced the defendant’s ability to understand what was alleged or otherwise made it unreasonable to expect the defendant to indicate a guilty plea sooner than was done, a reduction of one-third should still be made.

In considering whether this exception applies, sentencers should distinguish between cases in which it is necessary to receive advice and/or have sight of evidence in order to understand whether the defendant is in fact and law guilty of the offence(s) charged, and cases in which a defendant merely delays guilty plea(s) in order to assess the strength of the prosecution evidence and the prospects of conviction or acquittal."

In the course of oral submissions Ms White confirmed that in addressing Judge Everett in mitigation, she had not developed any further the reasons set out in her Sentencing Note as to why exceptionally there should be full credit for the guilty pleas, rather than the 25% appropriate for guilty pleas at the PTPH.