[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Brown, R (on the application of) v St Albans Crown Court [2006] EWHC 1244 (Admin) (28 April 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1244.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 1244 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Friday, 28 April 2006

1. MR JUSTICE HODGE: In this case Emma Brown is the claimant. She applies for judicial review of a sentencing decision by the Crown Court at St Albans. The application came before Underhill J on the papers. The case was very much out of time, but, having considered the background, the judge extended time and granted permission. The application is therefore before me today. I have had a very full and helpful skeleton from Mr Bunting, counsel on behalf of the claimant. The Crown Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions, wholly understandably do not appear and have not been represented.
2. The background is that this claimant passed her driving test in 1995. On 28 October 2004 she appeared before the Central Hertfordshire Magistrates' Court for three sets of offences committed on 24 July 2003, 13 August 2003 and 2 February 2004. All the offences were for driving without insurance, contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
3. The claimant pleaded guilty to all the charges. Financial penalties were imposed. She was disqualified for 36 months on the first offence, and for 12 months on the other two offences, all running concurrently.
4. The claimant appealed the disqualification to the Crown Court at St Albans. On 17 December 2004 the appeal was allowed to the extent that the period of disqualification was reduced to 24 months.
5. The claimant had various difficult domestic circumstances at the time. She appears to have been unclear as to what, if anything, she could do about the decision of the Crown Court. Eventually she was advised to apply for judicial review.
6. It is unclear to me if Underhill J was aware when he granted permission that the claimant had three other, separate previous convictions for driving without insurance. Two were in 2003 and one was in 2004. In all of those offences financial penalties were imposed. For the first offence her licence was endorsed with seven penalty points applied For the other two there were six penalty points. She therefore appeared before the Central Hertfordshire Magistrates' Court when she already had 19 points on her licence. It is clear to me that the magistrates court did not know that. We have no mechanical recording systems in the Crown Court in cases of this sort. It was unclear, therefore, what was before that court.
7. Normally, the Administrative Court is not involved in these kinds of issues. There were various tests for granting judicial review set out in Mr Bunting's helpful skeleton. The one that is most appropriate is that contained in R v Michael Keith Wyle (No 2) [2001] EWCA Cr 1433. The Vice-President, Rose LJ, considered the way in which sentencing decisions might be challenged by judicial review. The test proposed was to consider whether the sentence imposed by the Crown Court fell "outside the broad area of the lower court's sentencing discretion". In an earlier case, also against St Albans Crown Court, Cinderman [1981 QB 480, the test was that the sentence must be "truly astonishing" before the High Court will intervene.
8. As is clear, the claimant had her three-year qualification reduced by the Crown Court to two years. She therefore has to convince this court that the two-year disqualification is a sentence which falls outside the broad area of the lower court's sentencing discretion. Any sentencing court will look at all the background, will consider the individual circumstances of the claimant, will consider aggravating and mitigating features and reach its conclusion.
9. I have to approach this matter on the basis of the very full information I now have. This claimant appeared before the Crown Court with three convictions previous to those for which she was appealing the sentence. The total penalty points imposed in these three earlier cases was 19. She pleaded guilty to three further driving without insurance matters. On a plea of guilty to such an offence the licence must be endorsed and the minimum number of penalty points that are to be imposed is six. She was therefore before the court with liability potentially to have 18 penalty points imposed on her, to add to the 19 penalty points that she previously had, making a total of some 37 penalty points. She should have been disqualified before she was in this case as she was liable to the totting-up provisions. But somehow or other the matter had been missed at an earlier stage.
10. If a person is liable to lose their licence because of the accumulation of penalty points, the minimum disqualification should be six months. There is some rather limited discretion to reduce that. But none of those discretionary elements seem to be applicable in this case. I therefore consider that I have to compare a minimum disqualification of six months which the court ought to have imposed with that which eventually was imposed at St Albans Crown Court, viz two years. I also have to note that there have been six driving without insurance convictions. As has been pointed out on many occasions these are serious offences. It is bad of course for the defendant to drive without insurance, but if accidents happen and people are injured it is very much worse for those people. There is no insurance company to immediately fall back on to assist with any claim.
11. So this applicant had a total of six convictions for driving without insurance. It seems to me, looking at this in the round it cannot be said that the two years disqualification that the Crown Court eventually imposed falls outside the broad area of the lower court's sentencing discretion.
12. In those circumstances, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
13. MR BUNTING: It matters not, my Lord, but I think the response from the Crown Court -- the acknowledgment of service indicate they did have previous convictions, but that makes no difference.
14. MR JUSTICE HODGE: If I have to amend it on the transcript I will.
15. MR BUNTING: My Lord, in relation to costs, the claimant was appearing in person up until a very short amount of time. As I understand it, those instructing me were trying to ...
16. MR JUSTICE HODGE: I will give you a funding assessment if that is what you want, if they have a certificate.
17. MR BUNTING: I do not know if they have. If they have a certificate, which I think they may not, could I have an assessment, but if not then I am appearing pro bono.
18. MR JUSTICE HODGE: Thank you anyway for your help.