HM Advocate v Gatti
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian),Lord Turnbull,Lord Pentland |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] HCJAC 7 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | No 16 |
[2021] HCJAC 7
Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian), Lord Turnbull and Lord Pentland
Advocate (HM) v Bell 1995 SLT 350; 1995 SCCR 244
Geddes v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 43; 2015 SLT 415; 2015 SCCR 230; 2015 SCL 629
Milligan v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 84; 2015 SCL 984; 2015 GWD 32-529
Sutherland v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 115; 2016 SLT 93; 2016 SCCR 41; 2016 SCL 233
Scottish Sentencing Council, Principles and Purposes of Sentencing: Sentencing guideline (Scottish Sentencing Council, Edinburgh, 26 November 2018) (Online: https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/1964/guideline-principles-and-purposes-of-sentencing.pdf (18 March 2021))
Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing Council, London, 4 August 2008) (Online: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/ (18 March 2021))
Justiciary — Sentence — Appeal — Unduly lenient sentence — Causing death by dangerous driving — Failure to stop and to report accident and attempt to pervert course of justice — Sentencing judge having regard to guideline used in England and Wales as crosscheck in disposal — Aggregate headline sentence of seven years' imprisonment selected — Whether sentence unduly lenient — Road Traffic Act 1988 (cap 52), sec 1
Shaun Gatti was charged on an indictment at the instance of the Right Honourable W James Wolffe QC, Her Majesty's Advocate, with having caused death by dangerous driving in contravention of sec 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, failing to stop after an accident in contravention of sec 170, failing to report an accident also in contravention of sec 170, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. He pled guilty to those four charges. On 22 July 2020, he was sentenced in the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow by Lord Mulholland to an aggregate seven-year custodial sentence, discounted to five years and three months in light of the timing of his plea of guilty. The Crown appealed against the sentence on the ground that it was unduly lenient to the High Court of Justiciary.
Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (cap 52) provides, “A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.”
The respondent was indicted on charges of causing death by dangerous driving, failing to stop after an accident, failing to report an accident, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The respondent had consumed alcohol prior to driving and had been speeding on the wrong side of the road when he struck, and killed, a pedestrian. The respondent drove home and cleaned his car, removed the registration plates, and covered it with a tarpaulin. The sentencing judge imposed a headline six-year custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving which was discounted to four-and-a-half years in light of the timing of the plea of guilty. Concurrent four-month custodial sentences were imposed for failing to stop and failing to report, discounted to three months. A consecutive headline 12-month custodial sentence was imposed for attempting to pervert the course of justice, discounted to nine months. The sentencing judge used the Sentencing Council for England and Wales guideline, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, as a crosscheck in selecting sentence. He considered that the offence of causing death by dangerous driving fell within level 2 which had an appropriate sentencing range of between four and seven years' imprisonment. The Crown appealed the sentences imposed for the charges of causing death by dangerous driving and attempting to pervert the course of justice as having been unduly lenient.
The Crown submitted that the sentencing judge had failed to recognise the gravity of the respondent's action before, during and after the fatal collision and that the charge of causing death by dangerous driving ought to have been categorised as being within level 1 or at the higher end of level 2, with reference to the guideline.
The respondent submitted that the judge had applied his mind to all relevant sentencing factors and that his approach to sentencing did not show any error and did not justify the criticisms advanced in...
To continue reading
Request your trial