Ian Milligan v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2015] HCJAC 84

Note of appeal against sentence:- On 23 April 2015, following a trial at Glasgow High Court, the appellant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A Criminal Justice Social Work Report was requested and, on 28 May 2015, the appellant was sentenced to six years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for eight years and until he passed the extended test. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed on the grounds that the period of imprisonment and the period of disqualification were excessive. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the sentencing judge had been wrong to categorise the driving as falling into the second level of seriousness in the English sentencing guidelines and the driving ought to have been categorised as falling within level 3. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that this was a single brief manoeuvre, albeit a catastrophic error, and that there were no aggravating features like drink, drugs, previous convictions or attempting to drive off or other associated driving offences. Here the court refused the appeal and stated that it could not say that the sentences were excessive having regard to the particular circumstances of the offence. The court stated that the sentencing judge, having heard the evidence, was in a better position to assess the manner of the driving and decide upon the appropriate sentence. The court noted that whilst the periods of imprisonment and disqualification were perhaps towards the upper end of the appropriate range of sentences it should be noted that the Scottish approach to sentencing is less formulaic than the English sentencing guidelines and they should not be applied too rigidly. The court stated that there were further aggravating features in this tragic case:- (1) in addition to the death of Mr Wells, the front seat passenger in the appellant’s car, four others were also injured, including two who had life threatening injuries; and (2) the appellant had disregarded warnings and road markings.