HM Advocate v Jones
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian),Lord Turnbull,Lord Pentland |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] HCJAC 8 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
| Docket Number | No 17 |
[2021] HCJAC 8
Lord Justice Clerk (Dorrian), Lord Turnbull and Lord Pentland
Advocate (HM) v Bell 1995 SLT 350; 1995 SCCR 244
Advocate (HM) v Gatti [2021] HCJAC 7; 2021 JC 146; 2021 GWD 6-89
Milligan v HM Advocate [2015] HCJAC 84; 2015 SCL 984; 2015 GWD 32-529
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 and causing serious injury by dangerous driving — Sentencing judge having regard to guideline used in England and Wales as crosscheck in disposal — Headline sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment selected — Whether sentence unduly lenient — Road Traffic Act 1988 (cap 52), secs 1, 1A
Stephen Jones 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 and having caused serious injury by dangerous driving in contravention of sec 1A. He pled guilty. On 15 September 2020, he was sentenced in the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh by Lord Doherty to a headline four-and-a-half year custodial sentence, discounted to three years 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.” Section 1A provides, “(1) A person who causes serious injury to 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 a composite charge of causing death by dangerous driving and of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The respondent was driving a bus when he repeatedly drove on to the opposing carriageway, drove at a speed excessive for the road layout, failed to negotiate a left-hand bend, and drove directly into the path of an oncoming car. Both occupants of the car died from their injuries, while all four passengers on the bus suffered injury. There was no suggestion that the bus ever exceeded the applicable speed limit of 50 miles per hour. The respondent indicated that, just before the fatal collision, he had been temporarily blinded by the sun while negotiating the corner. He expressed remorse for his actions. He had relevant previous convictions, including two relatively recent convictions for careless driving. His wife was disabled and relied upon him for care. The sentencing judge accepted that the sun may well have briefly impaired the respondent to some extent, but that there had been other more substantial causes for the collision for which the respondent had been wholly responsible. The sentencing judge selected a headline sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment, discounted to three years in light of the timing of the plea. By way of crosscheck, the sentencing judge considered that the offence had been at the high end of level 3 of the guideline issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, for which the appropriate sentencing range was between two to five years' imprisonment. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed as being unduly lenient.
The Crown argued that the sentencing judge had failed to recognise the seriousness of the danger presented in the case and that the sentence imposed had failed to satisfy the need for retribution and deterrence. The Crown submitted that, with reference to the guideline, the offence ought to have been categorised as falling within level 2, for which the appropriate sentencing range was between four...
To continue reading
Request your trial