Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Stephen Jones [2021] HCJAC 8

Crown appeal against sentence:- The respondent pled guilty at the High Court by the accelerated procedure under section 76 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The respondent was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment discounted from 4 years and 6 months on account of the plea of guilty. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the ground that it was unduly lenient. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the sentence was unduly lenient and failed to recognise the seriousness of the driving which included:- (1) the respondent was driving a public service vehicle with passengers on board; (2) the respondent was driving at excessive speed; (3) the prevailing driving conditions included significantly reduced visibility due to direct sunlight; and (4) the accident occurred when the respondent made no attempt to properly negotiate a bend and continued in the wrong carriageway. It was further submitted that the following aggravating factors were present:- (1) the respondent had relevant previous convictions; and (2) two people died and four were injured. It was submitted that the sentence imposed failed to satisfy the need for retribution and deterrence and, in light of the Definitive Guideline on “Causing death by dangerous driving” issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, the sentence was unduly lenient as the offence ought to have been categorised as level 2 rather than level 3. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that, having regard to the test in HMA v Bell 1995 SLT 350, it could not be said that the sentence fell outwith the range which any judge could reasonably have considered appropriate and the sentencing judge had adequately identified the aggravating features and the personal mitigation in selecting the sentence he had. Here the court considered that the sentence imposed was lenient but not unduly so and refused the appeal against sentence. The court reiterated that the Definitive Guideline is not applicable in Scotland and should not be followed with “slavish adherence”. The court considered that the fact the vehicle was a PSV was relevant but that it was not the nature of the vehicle or its load which made the speed an issue but, rather, the weather and the nature of the locus. The court did not consider that the driving amounted to a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving as categorised in Level 2 of the Guideline but rather “driving above the speed limit/at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions” under level 3.