R v Jenniver Harris

On 17 December 2025, following a trial in the Crown Court at Winchester, the appellant was convicted of dangerous driving, contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

On 3 February 2026, she was sentenced by Recorder Allman to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with a requirement to complete 15 days’ rehabilitation activity and 15 hours of unpaid work. The appellant was also disqualified from driving for a period of three years and until an extended re-test was passed.

She now appeals against the disqualification order with the leave of the single judge.

On 26 September 2023, the appellant left the King of Wessex Public House in Basingstoke in a state of considerable distress after an ongoing argument with her ex-partner over the telephone. CCTV footage captures her in the car park. The appellant started her car, briefly reversed it, then pressed the accelerator and drove directly across a busy dual carriageway, mounted the opposite kerb, drove across the pavement and over a grassed area until she hit a brick wall. The force of the impact caused considerable damage to both the wall and the vehicle, and caused the appellant to lose consciousness for a short period. When the police arrived, and after she had regained consciousness, the appellant became abusive and refused to take a breathalyser test. In the event, she was not charged for her failure to do so because her behaviour prevented the police from giving the required warning as to the consequences of refusing to take the test. The appellant told the police that she had been trying to kill herself.

At the time of the offence the appellant was 54 years old. She had two convictions for driving offences: driving while unfit in 2002, for which she was fined; and driving with excess alcohol in 2019, for which she received a community order.

In her sentencing remarks, the Recorder noted that it was fortunate that there were no pedestrians or cars on the road at the time, because the speed at which the appellant drove would have prevented any avoiding action being taken.

The Recorder categorised the offence as one of culpability A and harm 1. She identified a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Recorder ultimately reached the conclusion that a rehabilitative sentence was justified, and she imposed a suspended sentence with the conditions to which we have referred. There is no criticism of that sentence.

So far as the period of disqualification is concerned, the Recorder noted that the appellant’s period of dangerous driving was of short duration, but in that short duration other road users had been put at risk of significant harm. She noted that the appellant had been driving on a revoked licence and without insurance. Had the police been able to administer the necessary warning, and had a conviction for driving with excess alcohol been entered, a mandatory three year disqualification period would have been required. The Recorder noted the impact that disqualification would have on the appellant, given her reliance on a car, but concluded that a three year period of disqualification was appropriate.

In her impressive submissions on behalf of the appellant, Ms English argues that the period of three years’ disqualification imposed by the Recorder was manifestly excessive, and in particular that such a disqualification impaired the prospects of the appellant’s continuing rehabilitation. She points to the evidence before the Recorder of the appellant’s positive steps towards rehabilitation, including the report from Cranstoun (a rehabilitation charity) as to the appellant’s success in her efforts to abstain from alcohol; evidence that the appellant had good employment prospects, which could not be realistically pursued without a driving licence because the appellant lived in a rural location; and the steps that the appellant herself had taken to stop driving whilst she addressed her alcohol issues.

There is before this court an updated report dated 16 June 2026, ordered by the single judge. It states that the appellant has remained in stable and secure accommodation, albeit that the rural location where she lives has proved isolating. The appellant has been working with “Working Chance” (a charity which assists female offenders into work), and with the Job Centre to ready herself for employment. Her progress led the Probation Service to place her under suspended supervision, and the report is generally a positive one.

With the exception of the updated report, the matters now relied upon were all considered by the Recorder. It is clear from the principal sentence imposed that the Recorder had considerations of rehabilitation very much in mind. We are unable to accept the submission that, having had full and proper regard to those matters when she imposed a suspended sentence, the Recorder failed properly to consider them when she determined the period of disqualification. As the Recorder found, the offence involved a very high level of risk to road users and pedestrians. The offence was aggravated because the appellant was driving without a valid licence (which had been revoked) or insurance. We have already referred to the two previous driving convictions.

The Recorder was entitled to conclude that a significant period of disqualification was necessary to protect the public, not least from the risk that the appellant might be unable to maintain the progress she had made.

While the update report is encouraging – and it is very much to be hoped that the progress to which it refers is continued – it is only four months since the sentence was imposed. The report cannot be said to remove the concerns which led the Recorder to impose the period of disqualification which she did for the purposes of protecting the public.

We are satisfied that it was fully open to the Recorder to conclude that a three year period of disqualification was necessary. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.