R v Nathan Jenkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Treacy |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Crim 105 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 201403190 A3 |
| Date | 29 January 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Crim 105
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Court of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Treacy
Mrs Justice Swift DBE
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker
No: 201403190 A3
Mr AR Taylor appeared on behalf of the Appellant
In April 2014 this offender pleaded guilty to two offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He was sentenced at Newport Crown Court on 6 June 2014. On that occasion the judge imposed two sentences of 3 years' imprisonment to run consecutively, making a total of 6 years. The offender was disqualified from driving for 10 years and until an extended retest was passed. He also acknowledged offences committed on the same occasion of driving otherwise than in accordance with the licence, and using a vehicle without insurance for which no separate penalty was imposed. He had also breached two previously made community orders. These were revoked and no separate penalty was imposed. The single judge has granted leave. A challenge to the sentence passed below relates solely to the term of imprisonment imposed.
The facts show that on the evening of 14 May 2013 Mr and Mrs Williams were driving home in a 30 mile per hour zone. They were well within the speed limit. As Mr Williams rounded a bend the appellant's car, coming in the opposite direction, entered Mr Williams' lane and there was a head-on collision. The scene was described as horrific. Both Mr and Mrs Williams were trapped in their vehicle. It took about an hour for the fire brigade to release them. The appellant was also cut free from his vehicle.
A police investigation report stated that the damage caused to the vehicles was consistent with the impact having taken place with a closing speed of 90 to 100 miles per hour. CCTV footage captured the appellant's car on its journey before the crash. At that stage it was travelling at 73 miles per hour in a 30 mile an hour zone. It was raining heavily at the time. A taxi driver and an off-duty police officer were driving separately on the same road. They had seen the appellant driving at excessive speeds at some point before the collision. The taxi driver had thought that the appellant was going to kill somebody because of the manner of his driving. The police officer remarked to a colleague on the idiocy of that driving.
The injuries suffered by Mr and Mrs Williams were very significant. Mr Williams had a broken arm, an open below the knee fracture to his leg, a fractured ankle which required pinning, two fractured ribs and a fractured hip. Part of his calf muscle had to be removed from his leg and he required skin grafts. He was confined to a wheelchair for a considerable time and at sentence was still only able to walk with a stick.
Mrs Williams had a broken arm which required plating. She had seven broken ribs, a punctured lung, internal bleeding, damage to her shoulder, nerve damage and a puncture wound around her knee. She was in intensive care for two days and in a high dependency unit for a further three days.
The appellant was taken to hospital as he had been knocked unconscious. He suffered fractured ribs, a fractured leg and hip. He only had a provisional driving licence. He was uninsured. The judge found that he had been showing off and thrill seeking at the time of the collision. He commented on the agony for the occupants of the car who were trapped for almost an hour, and who thought that they were going to die before the fire service cut them out. The offender had been involved in a similar accident not long before this one. He had not learned from that experience.
There were victim personal statements before the court. It was plain that the consequences of the collision were long term. The Williams's daughter had had to postpone her wedding for a year because of the crash. Their recovery was prolonged and painful and they were separated from one another for a considerable period: a source of real distress to them. Mr Williams has been transformed from an active outgoing individual to one whose mobility will be significantly affected. He suffers regular nightmares about the accident.
Mrs Williams described the trauma in very similar terms. Of particular distress to her is the fact that her breasts are now misshapen and painful. She finds this particularly upsetting. She spoke of continuing pain. Both of them speak of a loss of social confidence and of financial difficulty. As Mrs Williams puts it:
"We do not have our health, we have no vehicle, and we are financially drowning. Life as we knew it has dramatically changed forever."
This appellant, the cause of such misery, is aged 27. He has been a regular attender before the courts, having previously been convicted of some 23 offences. As far as motoring offences are concerned, he was convicted of driving without due care and attention in November 2013, together with other offences including no insurance and failing to stop after an accident. He was fined and disqualified for 4 months on that occasion.
The grounds of appeal submit that the judge was wrong to impose consecutive sentences for matters arising out of the same incident. It was also submitted that the judge failed to apply the principle of totality. The judge was criticised for having given too much weight to the sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving. The 3 years imposed on each count would represent a starting point, prior to guilty plea, of 4 1/2 years' imprisonment for offences for which the statutory available maximum is 5 years. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the Crown Court and the judge had allowed a full one-third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Bradley Edward Downs
...victims than for having injured one victim but also having caused damage. 18 In this context, the appellant relies on R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105, [2015] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 70. In that case, the driver was charged with two offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, the vict......
-
R v Robert Anthony Brown
...closely aligned with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. In R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105, two people had suffered serious injury in a collision caused by the defendant's dangerous driving. The trial judge imposed c......
-
R v Chudasama
...Aorney General’s Reference(No 57 of 2009) (R v Ralphs) [2009] EWCA Crim 2555; [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 30 to like effect. Rv Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105; [2015] RTR 144 concerned serious injury to two people in acollision caused by dangerous driving and Treacy LJ observed at para 12 that th......
-
R v Jason Patrick Howsego
...to have regard to the levels of offending as identified in that guideline. We refer in particular to R v Dewdney [2014] EWCA Crim 1722 and R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105. In both cases Treacy LJ gave the judgment of the court. 11 Looked at in isolation, this piece of driving fell within l......
-
Unduly Lenient Sentences (s. 36 CJA 1988): The Correct Approach to Sentencing Where Multiple Deaths Occur as a Result of Dangerous Driving: R v Robert Anthony Brown [2018] EWCA Crim 1775
...in AttorneyGeneral’s Ref (No. 57 of 2009) [2009] EWCA Crim 2555, a case better known as Ralphs and morerecently in R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105. The court almost appeared in their judgment to labourthat this was settled law which they were a little surprised to see H.M. Solicitor Genera......
-
Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving: Time for a Sentencing Guideline?
...Courtof Appeal held that the trial judge had erred by not having regard to the sentencing guideline for the s.1 offence.In R v Jenkins [2015] EWCA Crim 105 the imposition of consecutive sentences in respect of injuriessustained by two separate victims arising out of a single crash were over......