R v Misho Tamoev

On 28 January 2026, having pleaded guilty before the Leicester Magistrates' Court, the applicant, Misho Tamoev. was committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of an offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving.

On 7 May 2026, in the Crown Court at Leicester the applicant (then aged 42) was sentenced by His Honour Judge Raynor to ten months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years and five months.

The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred by the Registrar to the Full Court.

At approximately 12.30 pm on 23 November 2024, Ms Susan Harrington was driving along Paudy Lane in Leicestershire in light rain approaching the junction with Big Lane to her nearside. The speed limit on Paudy Lane is 50 miles per hour and on Big Lane it is 60 mile per hour.

As Ms Harrington began to pass the junction, she became aware of another vehicle, a Mercedes C-Class (driven by the applicant), that had not stopped at the junction. Despite the "Give Way" signs and markers, the applicant failed to give way and collided with Ms Harrington’s vehicle to her offside. Ms Harrington's vehicle was pushed into a van that was also waiting at the junction and this caused substantial damage to both vehicles.

Ms Harrington was knocked unconscious. When she regained consciousness, the airbags were all deployed. Her vehicle had been pushed into the nearside grass verge. She was trapped inside her car, unable to leave due to the damage. Ms Harrington was eventually removed from the vehicle after the driver's door hinges were cut off by the Fire Service. She was tended to by paramedics and taken to Leicester Royal Infirmary.

When police officers attended, the applicant's Mercedes was noted to have considerable front-end damage. The van had damage to the offside front quarter and looked as though it had spun through 90 degrees. Ms Harrington's Mazda had substantial front-end damage. The applicant stated that he was having a conversation with his partner and did not see the "Give Way" junction. He also said that the stop line for the junction had faded and that he was a police officer in the Bedfordshire Police Force.

In calls to his insurance company the applicant said: "I did not realise I was coming up to the main road due to the weather and road marks. When I realised I was on the main road I did not stop in time as there was a vehicle on the main road. I bumped into the car in front of me and the car in front bumped into another vehicle". He added: "No road marks and wet weather conditions, not proper road signs". He confirmed that he had two other passengers in the vehicle and that neither was injured.

Ms Harrington remained at hospital until 5 December 2024. She suffered a series of injuries: a lacerated spleen which caused internal bleeding, a fracture to both sides of her pelvis and hematoma, a fracture to two of her ribs on her left side, fracture to her sacrum, a collapse of a small portion of the left lung, arterial dissection of the left carotid artery due to over extension of her neck, vertigo - which caused months of dizziness, grazes to the right side of her forehead and the back of her left hand, and a bruise to the liver. During her hospital stay, of 13 days, Ms Harrington underwent a splenetic embolisation to treat an aneurysm in her spleen. She was informed that it would result in her losing approximately half her spleen. She was informed that the fractures to the vertebra and pelvis would heal without intervention.

Upon discharge from hospital, she had to use a walking stick and have someone support her to walk. Since the collision, Ms Harrington has experienced a continual heartbeat sound in her left ear. She was later diagnosed with pulsatile tinnitus which was the result of a traumatic head injury in the collision. She returned to the hospital on 23 January 2025 and was diagnosed with an over extension of her neck. She suffered from pain in her ribs, her neck, and the base of her skull. She became dizzy when lying down and getting up due to the vertigo. At the time of the sentencing hearing, she had been unable to return to her work as an occupational therapist and acupuncturist because her role required standing for a significant amount of time, which she could no longer do.

The applicant was interviewed on 26 June 2025. He provided a prepared statement in which he admitted the offence. Thereafter, he answered "No comment" to all other questions.

The applicant was of previous good character.

In sentencing him, the judge noted that he had failed to heed eleven warnings of the junction ahead, including a slow sign on the surface of the road; a "Give way" sign on the left of the road; painted countdown markers; a pull-in arrow on the road; an illuminated "Give way" sign on the right-hand side of the road; a sign on the left-hand side of the road indicating the presence of an A road ahead; a direction finger sign; a "Give way" sign at the junction; a painted "Give way" triangle at the junction itself; and finally, a "Keep left" bollard.

The judge concluded that the case fell into culpability category A, because the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving; and harm category 1, because the offence resulted in a permanent, irreversible injury to the victim. That gave a starting point of 12 months' custody but the judge concluded that, in the light of all the facts of the case, after trial the appropriate sentence would have been 15 months' custody. He allowed one third credit for the guilty plea, which produced a final figure of ten months.

He then considered whether the sentence could be suspended. He held that it was unavoidable that a custodial sentence be imposed and that the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence was ten months. He also said that all the factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence applied; and that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community. In addressing the applicant, he said:

The judge then considered the factors which he said mitigated against suspension. He concluded that the appellant was "not a person who has taken due regard as a careful and competent driver and so you might present some risk but I am not overstating that factor".

Finally, he asked himself whether the seriousness of the offence means that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. He referred to the warning signs that would have been apparent to a careful driver. In the light of those matters he said that the sentence he would impose was an immediate custodial sentence of ten months' imprisonment.

On behalf of the applicant Mr Varley submits:

In our view, the judge was entitled to hold that the case fell into culpability category A, on the basis that the standard of driving was just below the threshold for dangerous driving; and harm category 1 on the basis that the offence resulted in a permanent, irreversible injury which had a substantial and long-term effect on the victim's ability to carry out normal day to day activities. That gives a starting point of 12 months' custody. He was also entitled, on those facts, to conclude that only a custodial sentence was sufficient for this offending.

However, we see no justification for going above that starting point. The judge's reference to the facts of the case constitutes double counting because he took account of those matters in reaching the starting point of 12 months. In fact, in our view there was some mitigation in the applicant's good character, which ought to have resulted in some reduction from the starting point. We would allow a reduction of three months from those 12 months. The credit for the guilty plea would then reduce that sentence to six months.

As the judge found, there were factors indicating that it might be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence: there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community; the applicant did not present a high risk of re-offending or of causing harm; there was strong personal mitigation; immediate custody would have a harmful impact upon the applicant's partner and daughter; and the applicant did not have a history of poor compliance with court orders.

However, so poor was this piece of driving and so serious its consequences that in our judgment the judge was entitled to conclude that the seriousness of the offence meant that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.

It follows that we grant leave to appeal. We allow the appeal, but only to the length of the term. We quash the sentence of ten months' imprisonment and substitute a sentence of six months' immediate imprisonment.

Disqualification from driving for a period not less than 12 months in the absence of special reasons is obligatory under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for various offences, including causing serious injury by careless driving: see section 2C of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Sections 35A and 35B of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 require the court to extend the period of driving disqualification to ensure that a person who is also sentenced to custody does not serve all or part of their disqualification while in custody.

In those circumstances we allow the appeal and we substitute for the sentence of ten months' immediate imprisonment, a sentence of six months' immediate imprisonment. We rescind the disqualification order made by the judge and replace it with an order that the applicant is disqualified from driving for 18 months, which period runs from the date of the original sentence, namely 7 May 2026.