R v Richardson and ors [2006] EWCA Crim 3186

A case in which I appeared for the lead appellant Mr Richardson has become the guideline case for sentencing for  causing death by dangerous driving as a result of a decision by The Court of Appeal and The Court Martial Appeal Court. R v Richardson and other appeals [2006] EWCA Crim 3186; [2007] Crim. L. R. 315; 

Archbold Second Supplement to the 2007 edition comments:

S32-7
(link to main work)

Supplement Chapter 32
Motor Vehicle Offences

II. Driving Offences

A. Causing Death by Dangerous Driving

(5) Sentence

Guidelines
In R. v. Richardson[2007] 1Archbold News 4, CA and Ct-MAC (see also post, §§32-47f and 32-60), the court reviewed a number of authorities, including those cited in the main work and also Att.-Gen.'s Reference (No. 1 of 2006) (R v. Baker)[2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 75, CA, and Att.-Gen.'s Reference (No. 32 of 2006)[2007] R.T.R. 4, CA. In considering the impact of the increase in the maximum penalty on the Cooksley guidelines (see the main work), the court concluded that the relevant starting points identified in Cooksley should be reassessed as follows: (1) no aggravating circumstances: 12 months' to two years' imprisonment; (2) intermediate culpability: two to four-and-a-half years' imprisonment; (3) higher culpability: four-and-a-half to seven years' imprisonment; (4) most serious culpability: seven to 14 years' imprisonment. As to matters of mitigation, the court made two observations. First, where there has been a timely guilty plea, the correct approach is to calculate the correct sentence after a trial, and then apply the discount for a plea, because otherwise there is a risk of double counting the discount. Secondly, just as irresponsible behaviour is plainly an aggravating feature, it is a specific mitigating feature (not mentioned in Cooksley) that the defendant behaved responsibly, and took positive action to help at the scene; merely waiting or remaining at the scene is not mitigation.

S32-47f

Guidelines
In R. v. Richardson[2007] 1Archbold News 4, CA and Ct-MAC (see also ante, §32-7, and post, §32-60), the court said:
"However, absent the consumption of alcohol, careless driving on its own almost always involves culpability at the lowest possible scale. In one sense, every driver is careless when he makes a mistake. Every driver, even the best, and most experienced, and normally careful, does so from time to time. That does not mean that he has fallen 'far below' the appropriate standard. The distinction between careless driving and careless driving under the influence of drink is that drink induced errors amounting to careless driving are culpable in a way which the same errors made by a sober driver are not. We therefore suggest that when the Road Safety Act 2006 comes into force, it will no longer be appropriate for the difference between dangerous and careless driving to be elided.".

S32-60
(link to main work)

(5) Sentence

In R. v. Richardson[2007] 1Archbold News 4, CA and Ct-MAC (see also ante, §§32-7 and 32-47f), the court compared the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence, and considered the impact of the increase in the maximum penalty in relation to both offences on the Cooksley guidelines (see the main work). The court reassessed the relevant starting points for dangerous driving and noted two additional mitigating features applicable to both offences and not noted in Cooksley (see ante, §32-7). The court also gave the following guidance in relation to sentencing for the section 3A offence:
"The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, or causing death having consumed excess alcohol is identical. The natural implication is that they are equated in seriousness. If the level of impairment is only just in excess of the permitted limit, and the driving is otherwise careless rather than dangerous in the sense outlined in this judgment, the consumption of alcohol provides the most significant aggravating element of the offence. If there are no others, it will normally fall within the category of offences of causing death by dangerous driving which lack any additional aggravating features. As the consumption of alcohol increases, so does the relative culpability, and by the time the consumption is at or about double the legal limit, the case would fall within the intermediate category. At higher levels than this, in the vast majority of cases, there is a correlation between amount of alcohol consumed and significantly reduced standards of driving. In the vast majority of these cases, some distinct elements of culpability in the driving itself, identified as aggravating features in Cooksley, are almost inevitable. At these sorts of levels, the result will be dangerous driving of a kind which will take the case into the categories of higher culpability and then most serious culpability. In short, we do not envisage many cases where the alcohol level reaches three times the permitted limit, and the driving itself will be no worse than careless driving. However even if it were not dangerous in this sense, at these and higher levels the sentencing decision would normally fall within the two most serious categories of culpability" (at [30]).

1kbw members who appeared in this case:

• Camden Pratt QC
  
  

Judgment document: