Watson, R v

Mr Justice Butterfield: On 9th February 2007 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the appellant was convicted of dangerous driving. The following month, on 9th March, he was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for three years and until an extended test was passed.

He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge. The appeal is confined to the custodial sentence. There is no appeal against the length of the disqualification.

The appellant was a chauffeur. On 5th September 2005 he was driving a S Class Mercedes on a street near Grays Inn Road. He parked on a single yellow line. A traffic warden gave the appellant a friendly warning about his parking 15 minutes earlier than the incident with which we are concerned, but the appellant ignored him. The parking warden gave the appellant's vehicle five minutes more and then issued a ticket.

The appellant returned to his car. He chased the traffic warden up the road and threw a stone at him. He threatened to "bust his arse", and said if he saw him again he would run him over. The traffic warden came back down the street and began to make notes about the incident. With that, the appellant got into his car, executed a three-point turn and then drove deliberately at the complainant. Both the nearside wheels mounted the pavement. Witnesses who saw what happened described it as a very aggressive course of driving. The appellant speeded up and deliberately swerved towards the traffic warden, who was forced to jump out of the way.

A witness spoke of there being a second incident. That witness described the car returning to the scene two minutes later, speeding towards the traffic warden and swerving at him when he ran over to the other side of the road and again when he crossed tack. For a second time the car mounted the pavement with both nearside wheels and again went for the traffic warden. The car drove off. The traffic warden radioed for assistance. Later the appellant was arrested.

The appellant is 53 years of age. Save for relatively minor Road Traffic Act offences, he a man of hitherto good character. A pre-sentence report concluded that he was of no risk of re-offending.

Sentencing the appellant, the Recorder concluded that only a custodial sentence could be justified. Miss Heer, on behalf of the appellant, does not seek to disturb that conclusion and rightly so. The appellant deliberately drove dangerously at the complainant, using his large and powerful car as a potentially deadly weapon, driving it not simply to frighten the traffic warden, but, having lost control of himself completely, intending to hurt him. The appellant's conduct was aggravated and significantly aggravated by the fact that his victim was a public servant, carrying out the duties required of him and doing so, as the Recorder who presided over the trial had found, professionally and beyond criticism. This conduct plainly called for a custodial sentence of some length to mark the gravity of the appellant's conduct, to punish the appellant and to deter others minded to behave aggressively and dangerously towards other road users and, in particular, towards public servants such as traffic wardens.

Miss Heer submits that the length of sentence was excessive in all the circumstances. In grounds of appeal drafted by counsel it was first sought to impugn the Recorder's finding for the purposes of sentencing that the appellant attempted to drive at the complainant on two separate occasions. The grounds of appeal asserted that the Recorder was not entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence before him.

However, the single judge rejected that potential ground of ground of appeal and Miss Heer wisely abandons it. Clearly, for the reasons he gave, the Recorder was entitled to find as he did.

However, Miss Heer submits that the sentence here was simply too long in the light of the appellant's age, his previous driving record, and the loss of his livelihood in consequence of his conviction.

Unfettered by authority, this court would be minded to reject that basis of appeal. However, we are not unfettered by authority. Miss Heer refers the court to a line of recently decided cases in this court which suggest that the sentencing bracket for cases of road rage, where no injury in fact results, where there is no consumption of alcohol, where the evidence demonstrates furious driving in a temper with intent to cause fear and possible injury is between six to 12 months' imprisonment.

She directs our attention, first, to Howells [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 61. In that case 12 months' imprisonment was reduced to six months' imprisonment for dangerous driving in the form of following and ramming a motor cycle in a road rage incident. She further relies upon Joseph [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 20. There 15 months imprisonment for dangerous driving after a trial by driving at a traffic warden, then driving for 150 yards with the warden on the bonnet of the vehicle was reduced to ten months. The driving in Joseph was at least as bad, if not slightly worse, than the case of this appellant.

That said, there were other aggravating features of this case and in particular the return of the appellant, as the Recorder found and as we accept he was entitled to find, to have another go at the traffic warden at a time when it might be hoped that his fury and rage had had time to abate.

None of these cases are guideline cases; each of them depends on its own facts.

The Recorder was pre-eminently place to assess the gravity of the appellant's conduct. He plainly regarded that conduct as very serious indeed. He considered that the grossly aggravating features that he identified and to which we have referred put this case very close to the top of the bracket of dangerous driving.

We well understand the Recorder's sentiments, but both he and we are constrained by the broad thrust of the decisions of this court. We should say that we do not regard those cases as imposing an absolute ceiling of 12 months' imprisonment in such instances. Nonetheless, we are persuaded that in the circumstances of this case, giving proper weight to previously decided cases, that is in fact the appropriate sentence in this case.

We give effect to that conclusion by quashing the sentence of 20 months' imprisonment and substituting for it a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. The order in relation to the disqualification and the taking of an extended test will not be altered. To that extent, and for those reasons, the appeal is allowed.