[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Landon, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1755 (05 July 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1755.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 1755

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		5 July 2011

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This appellant, now 19 years old, appeals against sentences which His Honour Judge Bidder QC imposed earlier this year at the Crown Court at Cardiff. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by careless driving and the judge imposed sentences of 20 months' detention in a young offender institution on both counts concurrent. There was a co-accused, Jack Germain, who pleaded guilty to a count of driving without due care and attention. He was fined.
2. The background in summary is this. On the evening of 16th November 2009, when he was 17 years old, the appellant met up with a group of friends in Bridgend Town Centre. There were four cars and he had two passengers in his, Royston Thomas and Alexander Jones, both close friends and both also 17 years old.
3. Shortly before the accident all four cars gathered at a retail park. A decision was made to drive to the coast. The appellant was following a car driven by Germain and two other cars were behind him. The route to took them along a B road which had a speed limit of 40mph. It had been raining that day and there were puddles on the road. The road was not well lit. The appellant overtook Germain and opened up a gap of about 100 to 120 yards. He then negotiated a shallow S-bend in the road outside The Pelican Public House. There was a dip in the road and shortly after that dip a large puddle of standing water caused by a blocked drain. The puddle was deep and covered the width of the appellant's side of the carriageway. On the expert evidence the appellant was driving at between 64 and 71 mph. When the car hit the water it began to fishtail. The appellant lost control. The car crossed over into the other carriageway and then collided with the boundary wall of a house. Mr Germain, who was also driving at speed, saw the accident and was able to bring his car to a halt in the pool of water. He and his passengers alighted to assist. The two passengers in the appellant's car had been killed immediately. The appellant himself was in a coma for five days. An expert opined that if the appellant had been travelling within the speed limit of 40 mph and had seen the area of flooding he would have been able to stop short of the boundary wall, even if he had entered the water.
4. The appellant was interviewed. He said that he had no recollection of events leading up to the accident, but did know that the road had a speed limit of 40 mph. He said as well that he had driven along it a few times and would normally take care because he knew it was poorly lit, had a number of bends and would have puddles on it when it was wet.
5. The appellant was of previous good character. Before the judge there was a pre-sentence report. That recognised the inevitability of a custodial sentence. The report writer concluded that there was a low risk of the appellant reoffending. The appellant accepted full responsibility for his actions and presented as someone who was deeply remorseful.
6. In his sentencing remarks, the judge said that the appellant had taken the lives of two close friends through his careless driving. Both had great potential. No sentence would relieve the pain their families were suffering. The judge continued that the appellant was only 18 years old and was of good character. He was a very inexperienced driver who had only passed his driving test a month before. His inexperience was a contributory factor to the offences. The judge accepted that the appellant had no recollection of the accident and that he had pleaded at the earliest opportunity after the report of the defence experts had been submitted. He was entitled to full credit for his plea, and account was taken of his genuine remorse. He was an intelligent young man who was popular with his friends. The judge also accepted that the large sheet of water should not have been permitted to remain on the road for several days. In the judge's view the aggravating factors were the grossly excessive speed, the appellant's driving given the weather conditions, and the fact that two people had died. The mitigating factors were the appellant's pleas, his genuine remorse, his age, his inexperience and the fact that he was also seriously injured.
7. The judge referred to the sentencing guidelines and said that he considered that the case fell very clearly into the most serious bracket in the guidelines, namely driving which falls only just short of dangerous driving. Indeed, said the judge, the driving was right at the cusp between careless and dangerous driving. The judge explained the sentencing range in the guidelines for that type of offence, from 36 weeks to three years with a starting point of 15 months. If there had been a trial, said the judge, had there not been the various mitigating factors, particularly the appellant's age and good character, a term in excess of three years might have been justified. As it was, had there been a trial, he considered a term of 30 months' detention in a young offender institution would have been appropriate. He then imposed the sentences we have mentioned.
8. On the appellant's behalf Mr Daniel Williams contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The judge must have identified a starting point of 36 months, taking account of the plea and the mitigating factors. In his submission a custodial sentence was not wrong in principle, but the starting point was too high. The speed was an aggravating feature, but an important contribution to the accident was that water backed up on the road. Mr Williams also highlighted the very significant mitigating factors. The appellant himself was seriously injured in the accident, the victims were his best friends, there was the substantial contribution which the backed up water had made to the accident and the appellant lacked driving experience. In the expert's view had he been more experienced he would have braked earlier. There was also his genuine remorse and his young age. Overall, Mr Williams contended, this was a freak accident and a reduction to 12 months would be appropriate.
9. As this court has said on previous occasions, this type of case is immensely difficult. It almost goes without saying that the consequences are especially tragic. This accident involved three young men, all close friends, all with enormous potential. The parents of Royston Thomas and the father and godmother of Alex Jones (his mother being disabled) have written to the court and given expression to their grievous loss. We express our sympathy for the pain and the devastation they have suffered as a result of losing these fine young men.
10. On the other hand, there is the impact of the accident on the appellant himself. Not only did he incur serious injury from the accident, but he must live with the consequences of his actions for his friends for the rest of his life.
11. In our view the approach of the judge to this difficult sentencing exercise was unimpeachable. He undertook the task with care and in accordance with the lawful requirements of the sentencing guidelines. He took into account all the mitigating factors Mr Williams has advanced, including the appellant's age at the time. As the judge identified, however, there were serious aggravating features. The appellant's driving, as the judge described it, was especially culpable. He was driving well over the speed limit on a wet, narrow, poorly lit and bendy road, in conditions familiar to him. The appellant's driving, as the judge rightly concluded, was at the cusp between careless and dangerous driving. There was also the fact that two people were killed as a result of that driving.
12. Taking all those matters into account, we do not regard the judge's sentence as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. We dismiss the appeal.