R v Tyrone Jugessur

The appellant appeals with leave of the single judge against a sentence of 40 months' imprisonment for nine offences including dangerous driving and theft imposed by Mr Recorder Gregory Bull KC in the Crown Court in Cardiff on 1 April 2026.

We are grateful to Ms Smith-Higgins for her helpful, focused and clear submissions.

The appellant was sentenced in respect of three sets of offences. The appellant was 33 years old at the time of the first two sets of offences; he is now 34, as he was at the time of the third set of offences and when sentenced.

First, he was sentenced for:

The first theft concerned the stealing with a co-defendant of a Ford Transit van from Mr Butt, a carpenter, at his place of work. Mr Butt left his van to speak to a colleague for a minute and in that time his van was driven away. The appellant removed a 17-week old puppy from the van before stealing it, and the puppy was located shortly afterwards by the colleague. The appellant drove off with Mr Butt's tools which were in the van. The following day the police found Mr Butt's tools in the possession of the appellant and his co-defendant. The handling offence concerned handling of the van.

Secondly, the appellant was sentenced to three offences committed the following day, 30 July 2025, namely:

The second theft concerned the stealing with a co-defendant of a Hyundai car belonging to Mr Evans. Mr Evans momentarily left his car running as he was delivering newspapers. His car was driven away in convoy with the Ford Transit van in which Mr Butt's tools were later found. Mr Evans's car was recovered by police outside the home address of the co-defendant. The appellant was arrested nearby after running away from the van and discarding a bag with blank Ford key fobs and an OBD reader, which is used to programme key fobs. At the time of driving one of the two vehicles in the convoy the appellant was disqualified and uninsured.

Thirdly, the appellant was sentenced for four offences committed in December 2025, namely:

The offence of criminal damage was committed when the appellant, during an argument with his former partner, Ms Smith, about a man calling her mobile phone, threw Ms Smith's phone, smashing it on the street, and then threw her car key which broke into many pieces.

Eighteen days later the appellant committed the dangerous driving offence by repeatedly ramming a Mercedes car that Ms Smith was driving with the Seat Leon car that he was driving. Ms Smith screamed to a member of the public: "Call the police". The appellant was heard to tell Ms Smith, "I'm going to fucking ram you now". While the witness was on the phone to the police, the appellant rammed into the car Ms Smith was driving five or six times by reversing into it at speed. He then drove off. Again, at this time, the appellant was disqualified from driving and had no insurance.

The Recorder imposed the following sentences:

The total custodial term was therefore 40 months' imprisonment.

In addition, for the offence of dangerous driving the appellant was disqualified from driving for a period of 3 years and until he passes an extended driving test.

The Recorder originally pronounced that he was imposing eight penalty points for the two separate offences of driving without insurance. However, at a slip rule hearing on 7 May 2026, he removed the imposition of penalty points, recognising that they should not have been imposed at the same time as disqualification. It is unnecessary to detail the other ancillary orders that were made as they irrelevant to this appeal.

The appellant submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle, in that the Recorder either erred in the amount of credit he gave for the appellant's guilty pleas or adopted too high a provisional sentence before applying such discount, and he erred in reflecting totality.

In particular, the appellant observes that the Recorder did not identify the category in which he placed any offence or identify in respect of each offence the percentage reduction he was making for the appellant's guilty pleas. The appellant notes that in accordance with the Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea guideline, for the first theft he was entitled to a discount of one-third for his guilty plea and for the handling offence he was entitled to a 25% discount. The appellant submits that the Recorder did not explain the uplift from the starting point he must have made when imposing consecutive sentences of 12 months’ and 6 months' imprisonment for those offences and the sentences are manifestly excessive.

The Recorder imposed three sets of consecutive sentences, including two consecutive sentences in each of the first and third sets. The appellant submits that the Recorder ought to have made some downward adjustment to reflect totality and in failing to do so he did not ensure the overall sentence was just and proportionate.

We say at once, with regret, that the sentencing exercise was unsatisfactory. There is nothing wrong with sentencing remarks being brief and to the point; that, after all, was the message emphasised by this court in R v Chin-Charles [2019] EWCA Crim 1140, [2019] 1 WLR 5921. However, section 52 of the Sentencing Code requires a court to state the reasons for deciding on a sentence, to explain how the court has discharged its duty in relation to sentencing guidelines, and to state any discount given for a guilty plea.

The sentencing remarks omitted any description of the offences. The Recorder made no reference to any of the offence-specific sentencing guidelines to which his attention had been drawn, omitting to identify how he categorised any of the offences by reference to those guidelines. With respect to the appellant's guilty pleas, the Recorder stated only:

The Recorder should have dealt with the individual offences, briefly describing the key facts, working through, by reference to the guidelines, the starting point and the factors resulting in an upward or downward adjustment, identifying the discounts for guilty pleas he applied (see R v Beckford [2019] 1 Cr App R (S) 53 at [13]), and explaining shortly how totality had been factored in.

With respect to the period of disqualification, the Recorder simply stated:

Disqualification from driving for a period not less than 12 months in the absence of special reasons is obligatory for various offences including dangerous driving (section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (the "RTOA"). Sections 35A and 35B of the RTOA require the court to extend a period of driving disqualification to ensure that a person who is also sentenced to custody does not serve all or part of their disqualification whilst in custody. The provisions apply to offences committed on or after 13 April 2015 and so applied here. The sentences imposed by the Recorder had the effect that both provisions were engaged.

This court provided comprehensive guidance on these provisions in R v Needham [2016] 1 WLR 4449, see especially [31] and [47-50]. At [48] the court observed:

It is not clear from the sentencing remarks whether the Recorder applied sections 35A and 35B. We do not know whether the 3-year disqualification period included an “extension period” as required by section 35A(4)(h) in respect of the dangerous driving offence, nor whether it included any “uplift” (i.e. increase in the period of “discretionary disqualification”) in view of the other consecutive sentences imposed, to comply with section 35B(2)-(3). To be fair to the Recorder, the prosecution did not draw his attention to these provisions or to the guidance given in Needham.

As the Recorder failed to explain other than in very general terms how he arrived at the sentences he imposed, we consider it necessary to make good that deficiency by redoing the sentencing exercise. In doing so we bear in mind the statutory requirement to ensure that "taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below" (section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).

We have already outlined the facts of the offences. We apply one-third credit for the appellant's plea to the first theft offence, 25% credit for his plea at the PTPH to the handling offence, and 10% credit for his late pleas to all other offences.

We shall take the offence of dangerous driving as the lead offence in respect of the December 2025 offences and overall. The offence fell within Category A1 of the relevant sentencing guideline, as was common ground. Three Culpability A factors were present, namely, "Deliberate decision to ignore the rules of the road and disregard the risk of danger to others", "Prolonged, persistent and deliberate", and "Obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre". The victim suffered anxiety and distress and her car was damaged.

The starting point is 1 year 6 months' custody, and the range is 1 year to 2 years' custody. The following factors warranted an uplift from the starting point to close to the top of the range:

As regards mitigation, there was little. The most recent offences on his record prior to the current offences had been committed in October 2022, but that is a brief period of non-offending. We note the appellant's letter to the judge in which he accepted responsibility and expressed his remorse for his behaviour towards Ms Smith. The custodial sentence will, sadly, have an impact on his partner and daughters, aged 13 and 8, but that is an inevitable consequence of his offending.

In our judgment, balancing these factors results in an uplift from the starting point of 18 months to 20 months' imprisonment. The 10% discount for plea results in a sentence for dangerous driving of 18 months' imprisonment. This is more severe than the sentence imposed by the Recorder, but section 11(3) falls to be considered by reference to the case as a whole. Disqualification from driving must also be imposed for this offence. We will address the period once we have determined all the custodial sentences.

The offences of driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance which occurred at the same time as the dangerous driving offence fell into Category 2 of the offence guidelines, given respectively the evidence of associated bad driving and involvement in an accident where damage was caused. Accordingly, for the former offence the starting point is a high-level community order and the range is a medium-level community order to 12 weeks' custody, while for the latter both the starting point and range are a Band C fine with disqualification for up to 6 months or 8 points. The aggravating factor for both offences is the appellant's record, including previous offences in 2022 of driving whilst disqualified and without insurance. There is, as we have said, little mitigation. Applying the 10% discount for plea to each offence, it was appropriate to impose a concurrent sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for driving whilst disqualified and no separate penalty for driving without insurance, so we will not alter those sentences.

The offence of criminal damage (not exceeding £5,000) fell within Category B1, "Recklessness as to whether very serious damage caused to property" and "Serious distress caused", for which the starting point is a low-level community order and the range is a Band C fine to a high-level community order. The appellant's previous convictions, including for criminal damage, are an aggravating factor. There is no significant mitigation. 10% credit applied. As the appellant was being sentenced to a custodial term for other offences, it would not have been appropriate to impose a fine or community order; but the offence was not one which warranted a custodial sentence and so it was manifestly excessive to impose a consecutive custodial sentence. We will quash that sentence and substitute no separate penalty.

We now turn to the first theft and handling offence. The theft fell within Category A3. The Culpability A factor — "Sophisticated nature of the offence/significant planning" — was present for both thefts of motor vehicles on consecutive days given the appellant had an OBD reader and blank Ford key fobs. The starting point was 1 year and the range 26 weeks to 2 years' custody. The appellant's previous convictions, including 22 theft and kindred offences, among them theft of a motor vehicle, was an aggravating factor. We treat the related handling offence as a further aggravating factor. The appellant relied on delay in charging these offences, which we take into account, albeit it was for a relatively short period, and we give it limited weight. These factors warrant an uplift from the starting point to 15 months' imprisonment. Discounting by one-third for the appellant's plea results in a provisional sentence of 10 months' imprisonment. For this separate offending the sentence should be consecutive to the sentence for dangerous driving.

It was common ground that the handling offence fell within Category B3, the Culpability B factor being "significant role where the offending is part of a group activity". The starting point is a high-level community order and the range is a low-level community order to 26 weeks' imprisonment. The aggravating factor is the appellant's previous convictions, including a previous offence of handling, and again there is limited mitigation. This warrants an uplift to 4 months' custody, which we reduce to 3 months for plea, to be served concurrently. The Recorder gave no indication that he disagreed with the agreed categorisation nor for imposing a consecutive sentence for this closely-related offending which, bearing in mind the available credit, was 2 months above the top of the range. In our judgment that sentence was manifestly excessive.

Turning to the second theft and associated driving offences, as we have said, this theft too fell within Category A3. The aggravating factors were the appellant's previous convictions, the two driving offences and the appellant's attempt to dispose of evidence by discarding blank key fobs and an OBD reader when running from the police. Again, there was little mitigation. These factors warrant an uplift from the starting point to 18 months' imprisonment. Giving 10% discount for plea reduces this provisional sentence to 16 months' imprisonment. This was separate offending for which a consecutive term is appropriate.

The related driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance offences fall within Category 2 of the respective offence guideline — the higher culpability factor for both offences "being driving for reward". The aggravating and mitigating factors and the available discount are the same as for the earlier driving whilst disqualified and without insurance offences and we would have imposed the same sentences (i.e. 2 months concurrent and no separate penalty respectively). The Recorder gave no reasons for going above the range, as he must have done bearing in mind the available credit for this driving whilst disqualified offence. Nonetheless, given the sentence is concurrent, it is not manifestly excessive and so we will not alter it.

Bearing in mind the need for the total sentence to reflect all of the offending behaviour and to be just and proportionate, we reduce the total by 6 months. We shall do that by reducing the provisional sentence for the second theft from 16 months to 10 months' imprisonment.

The resulting sentence is 38 months' imprisonment, comprised of:

In the light of these sentences, we turn to consider the disqualification period. In this case this must be comprised of (i) the “discretionary” disqualification period (which must be no less than the obligatory period of 12 months, there being no special reasons for imposing a shorter period (section 34(1) RTOA)); (ii) an obligatory extension period pursuant to section 35A(4) equal to half the custodial sentence imposed for the dangerous driving offence; and (iii) an uplift, if and to the extent that it is appropriate, in consideration of the diminished effect of disqualification having regard to the consecutive sentences for the two theft offences (section 35B(2)-(3) RTOA).

Bearing in mind all the driving offences for which the appellant was sentenced on this occasion and his previous convictions for driving offences, we would have imposed a discretionary disqualification period of 3 years, an extension period of 9 months and an uplift of 10 months, amounting in total to 4 years 7 months. However, we consider that it would be unjust to increase the length of the disqualification imposed by the Recorder and so we shall maintain a total period of 3 years' disqualification. We structure that period as follows: 2 years 3 months' discretionary disqualification, plus 9 months' extension period. We refrain from adding an uplift, applying section 11(3).

For the reasons that we have given, we shall:

We recognise that the total sentence is only marginally less than that imposed by the Recorder, but the inadequate reasoning was such that it was necessary to redo the sentencing exercise. The appellant will serve up to half that term in custody. The remainder will be served on licence.