[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Chivers, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 2252 (17 August 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/2252.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Crim 2252

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		Wednesday, 17th August 2005

1. MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE: On 4th March 2005 in the Crown Court at Bristol, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of criminal damage. On 3rd May he pleaded guilty to a further count on the indictment of dangerous driving and a count of affray. On 1st June 2005 he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving, 9 months concurrent for the offence of affray, and one month concurrently in relation to criminal damage. He was disqualified from driving for 5 years in relation to the dangerous driving count and until an extended re-test is passed. He appeals against the period of disqualification only by leave of the Single Judge.
2. This appellant, who is 26 years of age, was responsible for a serious road rage incident. The circumstances were that a motorist, Mr Pears, was driving his Rover motorcar in Weston-Super-Mare. He saw the appellant behind him, revving the engine of his Vauxhall motorcar. The appellant was to claim in due course that Mr Pears had entered a roundabout when he should not have done, but Mr Pears was unaware of any previous incident.
3. What the appellant did was to overtake Mr Pears. He stopped immediately in front of him, got out of his car with something in his hand shouting and swearing. Mr Pears reversed away and the appellant hit his car. Mr Pears then drove off and the appellant got back into his car and chased him. Mr Pears was too scared to stop. He drove through a housing estate at high speed, the appellant behind him. He managed to put some distance between himself and the appellant and drove into a cul-de-sac to hide. But when he emerged five minutes later the appellant was still there, spotted him and sped up. He was forced to stop at some traffic bollards and Mr Pears was able to evade him by mounting the pavement. But when Mr Pears drove towards a leisure centre he was chased by the appellant. They drove round traffic islands the wrong way. A cyclist had to jump out of the way and a woman had to pull her children out of the appellant's way.
4. When the vehicles came to a stop, the appellant got out and ran towards Mr Pears carrying a wheel brace with which he hit Mr Pears' car, shouting "fucking wanker" and then drove off. Mr Pears estimated that the pursuit lasted about 12 minutes and covered a distance of six miles. He was extremely scared. £1,000 worth of damage was caused to his car.
5. The matter did not end there, because an off-duty police officer then saw the appellant drive through a red light and followed him, noting down the registration number of the vehicle. The appellant braked sharply in front of the officer, got out and approached the officer's vehicle. The officer was concerned for his safety and the safety of his child, who was in the vehicle at the time, and he reversed back up the road but the appellant kept accelerating and then braking just in front of the bonnet of the car. Eventually the officer was able to drive away but not without the appellant shouting "fucking wanker" at him. The officer said it was the most aggressive driving he had seen.
6. The appellant, when arrested, denied using his car on that day, although he admitted it was his. He was later positively identified at an identification parade.
7. The appellant is a man of 26. He had a previous conviction as a juvenile for violence. He had a more recent community sentence in respect of dishonesty and, in 1998, served a custodial sentence for a drugs offence. But he had no previous convictions in relation to motoring or bad driving.
8. There was a pre-sentence report and a medical report before the court. The pre-sentence report showed that he accepted full responsibility for the offences. He had just lost control of himself. He had suffered a traumatic episode in April 2004 which caused him a great deal of stress. That was an incident when he had been in work, set up a home with his partner and family, but had been assaulted following being at a night club, in circumstances which he did not remember, but had woken up soaking wet and bruised with ripped clothing and believed and feared that he had been sexually assaulted, following which he became depressed and irritable, was prescribed antidepressants and seeking the assistance of a psychotherapist. He was suffering anxiety attacks. He suffered a depressive illness as a response to trauma. It was thought that he would benefit from anger management treatment.
9. The pre-sentence report emphasised the severe impact that a prison sentence was going to have on his family.
10. There is no doubt that the prison sentence for this appalling behaviour was fully merited and no appeal is brought in respect of that. He has now served the majority of the time that he has to serve but will be on Home Detention Curfew for some time on his release.
11. The learned judge gave no reasons for the length of the disqualification which he imposed. He simply said:

"You're driving licence will be endorsed and you stand disqualified for 5 years until you have passed your re-test."

12. This is a man whose living is based upon his driving. He works on the docks in relation to the importation of cars. He has to drive to carry on that job. There is an important principle in respect of the imposition of periods of disqualification that they should not, except in exceptionally severe cases, be so long as to impair prospects of rehabilitation, with the impact that that can have on the family of the offender as well as on him. It does seem to us that the period of disqualification which was imposed here was substantially too high.
13. The judge had passed entirely proper sentences of imprisonment for the disgraceful driving. He gave cogent and clear reasons for the term that he imposed. But there is nothing to indicate the considerations which led him to arrive at a 5 year disqualification. In these circumstances an appeal to this Court became inevitable.
14. The two principal factors that lead us to conclude that this period was far too long are the absence of any previous motoring convictions and the absence of indication of bad driving in the past. We do not of course overlook or minimise the danger which he caused by his appalling aggressive driving on this occasion. But the sentence of imprisonment was passed in respect of that. It does appear to have been out of character for this man so far as driving is concerned.
15. The effect on him and his family is the other factor that weighs heavily with us. This family included a number of young children who need him as the breadwinner. For some time he will have to find employment which does not involve the need for a driving licence.
16. The minimum period of disqualification for dangerous driving is 12 months and we are urged to reduce this to that minimum. But the disgraceful and prolonged nature of the driving in this case albeit on that single occasion, fully justifies and indeed requires a significant uplift from that minimum. We have attempted to balance all relevant considerations. We will quash the disqualification of 5 years in this case, and substitute for it a period of disqualification of 18 months. The order for the extended re-test of course remains unaltered. The appeal is allowed accordingly.