BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. He also ordered that the offender be disqualified from driving on each count for a period of five years, the periods to run concurrently.

2. On 1 January 2000 at approximately 2.15 am police received a message that an apparently drunk male had been seen getting into a car at Donard Car Park, Newcastle after causing a disturbance outside a night club. Two police officers in a car, the driver Reserve Constable Rodney Hanna and the observer Constable Paul Thomas Hanna, went to the car park. There they saw a red Ford Sierra, with a male person in the driving seat and a female in the front passenger seat. The driver saw the police and drove out on to Bryansford Road. They followed that car, along with two other officers, the driver Constable Ward and the observer Reserve Constable Samuel Paul Hanna, in a second police car which had come to the scene. The Ford Sierra was driven at speed through Newcastle and along the road leading to Annalong. The driver ignored the flashing lights and two-tone horns of the two police vehicles. He drove at high speed to Ballagh Road, with the car’s lights off, and at a point a little over three miles from Donard Car Park the car struck the rear of another vehicle travelling in the same direction. It went out of control and struck a stone wall with such force that a large section of the wall was knocked down and collapsed into the adjacent field. The car mounted the bank, becoming briefly airborne, then struck a gate pillar, spun round and finished up in the road facing towards Newcastle. It was extensively damaged. In the latter stages of the collision the passenger, Nicola Joanne Russell, who had not been wearing a seat belt, was thrown from the car and sustained serious head injuries from which she died later that morning. She was aged sixteen years and was engaged to be married to the offender, whose child she was expecting.

3. The driver of the car, the offender Gerard James Rogan, then aged 25 years, was arrested and taken to Newcastle police station. On breath test it was found that his breath contained 66 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 ml of breath, 31 microgrammes above the prescribed limit. He was at the time disqualified from driving, a twelve-month ban having been imposed by Belfast Magistrates’ Court on 13 August 1999 for driving with excess alcohol. He also had a couple of minor driving convictions.

4. The observer in the front police car, Constable Paul Thomas Hanna, felt a bump as he came up to the scene of the accident, and was afterwards concerned that the car might have run over Miss Russell as she lay in the road. He reported his concern and part of the police investigation was directed towards ascertaining whether he might have done so. If the findings of the vehicle examiner and the pathologist are correct, he did not in fact run over Miss Russell’s body. The solicitors for the offender wished to check this possibility, however, and entered into correspondence with the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Through confusion caused by the similarity of the names of the officers, they were given the wrong name of the observer who reported feeling the bump and subsequent correspondence did little to clear up the confusion. They therefore prepared to mount a defence based upon the possibility that the death of the deceased was not caused by her being thrown from the offender’s car but by her being run over by the police car.

5. When the case came to trial defence counsel asked to see the judge and he and prosecuting counsel saw him in chambers. According to defence counsel, it was indicated to the judge that the offender wished to contest the case on the issue of the cause of death, and he was asked to adjourn the case in order to allow a report to be obtained from a forensic pathologist, whose preliminary views had only just been obtained. The judge was also informed that the parents of the deceased girl did not wish the offender to receive a custodial sentence and that her father was prepared to say so in court. We were informed that the judge indicated to counsel in chambers that if the father of the deceased so stated in open court he would, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, impose a suspended sentence. Crown counsel told us that he did not acquiesce in this course of action, but informed the judge that if it were taken the Attorney General might wish to consider referring the sentence to this court.

6. The offender decided, after discussion with his counsel, to plead guilty to the charges on the basis that his driving was a causative factor in the accident which led to the death of the deceased, while maintaining that it was not the principal cause of her death. A plea was entered on this basis and Miss Russell’s father made a plea for leniency in court, which the judge described as follows in his sentencing remarks:

7. The judge recognised that, as he stated, “in the normal course of events a sentence of immediate imprisonment would be inevitable”. In view of the fact that the offender and the deceased were engaged to be married, her father’s plea for leniency and the issue about the cause of death, he decided instead to impose the suspended sentences and fines which we have set out. He described his course of action as a “wholly exceptional view, which is not to be taken as any sort of precedent”.

8. Mr Weatherup QC on behalf of the Attorney General submitted that a suspended sentence was unduly lenient for such dangerous and irresponsible driving, particularly in the case of an offender who was already disqualified from driving. He pointed to the presence of a number of the aggravating factors stemming from the judgment of Lord Lane CJ in R v Boswell [1984] 3 All ER 353 at 357 and enumerated in Archbold, 2001 ed, para 32-8: the offender’s heavy consumption of alcohol, his prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving, his driving whilst disqualified, his previous convictions for motoring offences and his attempt to avoid apprehension by driving off at speed. He acknowledged the mitigating effect of the plea of guilty, the offender’s remorse and the closeness of his connection with the deceased, but submitted that the balance was still heavily against the offender and that the sentence was incontestably too lenient.

9. Mr Barry Macdonald QC for the offender emphasised, in addition to the mitigating factors which we have mentioned, the expectation aroused by the indications given by the judge in chambers, upon which the offender had acted in pleading guilty. He suggested that to disturb his decision now could be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Not only should the court show compassion towards the offender in the circumstances of the case, but it would be an injustice to him to send him to prison after all that had taken place. The judge, who had long experience of criminal trials and sentencing, was in the best position to assess the proper penalty and this court should not interfere with his sentence.

10. At this point we gave the offender’s counsel an opportunity to consider whether he wished to seek to set aside the plea of guilty, on the ground that he had been misled into entering the plea by the judge’s indication of the sentence which he proposed to impose, and offered to adjourn the appeal if he chose to do so. After consulting with his client, Mr Macdonald informed us that he wished to proceed without attempting to pursue that course. We therefore continued with the hearing on the merits of the sentence.

11. We have had occasion in several recent cases to consider the level of sentencing in serious motoring offences and the degree of public concern about them, reflected in the substantial increase in the maximum sentences which may be imposed in consequence of the enactment of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1998) (McElwee) [1998] NI 232 we reviewed the previous cases and it is not necessary to repeat what we said in that judgment. It is sufficient to say that the offender’s driving and his irresponsibility were culpable to a high degree and must be regarded as the very type for which Parliament intended the substantial penalties provided for in the legislation. Were it not for the mitigating factors, which we must now discuss, the appropriate sentence on a plea of guilty would undoubtedly be in the region of five years’ imprisonment.

12. We can dispose shortly of the suggestion, which was implied in the argument presented on behalf of the offender, that because of the doubt about the causation of the death of the deceased, he might merit a lower sentence. It is well settled law that on a charge of dangerous driving causing death the prosecution does not have to establish that the driving of the defendant was the sole cause of the death. It is enough to prove that it was a substantial cause, in the sense that it was something more than de minimis or a slight and trifling link: R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133; R v Kimsey [1995] Crim LR 35. On any version of the facts the offender’s driving must be regarded as a substantial cause of Miss Russell’s death. We cannot suppose that he could have reasonably expected an acquittal, whatever doubts may have been raised about the cause of the fatal injuries of the deceased. That factor could only have gone towards mitigation to a slight degree, as the sentence should reflect the quality of his dangerous and irresponsible acts. It would have been wholly wrong to suggest that because of it the judge could have been asked to consider suspending a clearly justified sentence of imprisonment, which would have savoured of something approaching plea bargaining.

13. Mr Macdonald relied strongly on the expectation raised in the mind of the offender by the indication given by the judge that if he pleaded guilty he would receive only a suspended sentence. He submitted that it would be unjust to increase the penalty after the offender had accepted the implied assurance contained in that indication and surrendered his chance of an acquittal. We have already dismissed that possibility, but even if it had been a real one we do not consider that in the circumstances of this case the judge’s indication can govern what this court regards as the proper disposition of the case. It is true that in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 80 and 81 of 1999) [2000] Crim LR 398 the Court of Appeal considered it wrong to reopen and increase a sentence where the judge had given a clear indication in chambers of his proposed sentence (which the court regarded as unduly lenient) and repeated it in open court, while prosecuting counsel had acquiesced unreservedly in the line taken by the judge and used it to prevail upon the offender to give evidence for the Crown. That case was, however, decided very much on its own facts, and the generally applicable principle is that a judge’s indication is no more than a factor to which the Court of Appeal may have regard in exercising its discretion on a reference: see Attorney General’s Reference (No 40 of 1996) (Robinson) [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 357. In Attorney General’s Reference (No 17 of 1998) (Stokes) [1999] Crim LR 92 Rose LJ stated it as follows:

14. We may add that we are aware of no authority for the proposition advanced by Mr Macdonald that to review the sentence would constitute a breach of Article 6 of the Convention, nor was he unable to cite any to us. We see no warrant in principle for such a conclusion. Crown counsel had properly made the judge and defence counsel aware that he did not acquiesce in the course proposed by the judge and that a reference was a possibility. The offender decided to plead guilty in that knowledge and cannot complain that he was deceived into doing so. In any event, we do not consider that he forfeited any real advantage in pleading guilty on the facts of the case.

15. The judge was plainly influenced to a considerable degree by the representations of Miss Russell’s parents, which do them considerable credit. It is necessary for sentencers to exercise caution in the way in which they allow such representations, whether in favour of or adverse to the accused, to affect their judgment. The principle which they should follow was articulated by Judge J, giving the judgment of the court, in R v Nunn [1996] 2 Cr App R (S) 136 at 140:

16. There is an exception, which is not material to the present case, where the imposition of a condign sentence on the offender may be actively detrimental to the interests of the victim.

17. The Court of Appeal set out three principles applying generally to the exercise of the power to vary unduly lenient sentences in Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) [1990] 1 WLR 41 at 45-6:

18. In another case decided a short time later, Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 1989) (1990) 90 Cr App R 358 the court indicated that it would not interfere unless the sentencing judge had made some error in principle which would result in public confidence being damaged if the sentence were not altered. Applying these principles, we are left in no doubt that the sentence in the present case was unduly lenient and that it is necessary for us to increase it. The offender’s driving was highly dangerous to the public and irresponsible. His consumption of alcohol was well over the prescribed limit for driving a motor vehicle. He was driving the car although he had been disqualified a few months earlier. He was attempting to escape apprehension by driving off at high speed.

19. We take account of the mitigating factors, in so far as we can appropriately do so. We do not disregard the expressed wishes of the family of the deceased, though for the reasons which we have set out we do not consider that they can be allowed to prevail. We have regard to the plea of guilty – even late in the day – and the offender’s feelings of remorse. We take into account the indication given by the judge of his intention. We recognise the effect of the double jeopardy factor and the fact that the offender has been at liberty since the trial. Placing all these matters in the scale, we are satisfied that the sentence was unduly lenient and that the case called for an immediate custodial disposition. As Lord Taylor CJ said in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 14 and 24 of 1993) (1993) 15 Cr App R (S) 640 at 643:

20. We consider that an immediate custodial sentence of two years’ imprisonment is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, and we propose to pass that sentence in place of the suspended sentence imposed by the judge on the charge of dangerous driving causing death. In place of the fines imposed on counts 2, 3 and 4 we shall substitute a sentence of three months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent with each other and with the sentence on count 1. We shall remove the suspension on the sentence on count 5, that of driving while disqualified, and make it a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, concurrent with the other terms of imprisonment. We shall leave the disqualification undisturbed. The effective sentence of the court will accordingly be one of two years’ imprisonment plus five years’ disqualification.

21. We do not wish to leave this reference without making some observations about the practice of counsel seeing the judge in chambers in order to discuss issues in the case about to come on for hearing. It is a basic principle of cardinal importance that justice is done in public, for all to see and hear, and all communications between counsel and judge should wherever possible be made in open court. On the other hand, freedom of access for counsel to the judge has always been recognised as an important part of the practice prevailing both in England and Northern Ireland: see, in England, R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321 and, in Northern Ireland, R v McNeill [1993] NI 43 at 48, per Hutton LCJ. To this end it was laid down by the English Court of Appeal in R v Turner that discussions should take place in chambers in criminal cases only where counsel has to communicate or discuss something which he cannot in his client’s interests mention in open court, eg that he is suffering from a serious health condition of which he is and should remain ignorant. It is legitimate to discuss with the judge whether the prosecution should accept a plea of guilty to a lesser charge.

22. We observe that the direction contained in the last sentence is at variance with that contained in paragraph 16.26 of the Code of Conduct for the Bar of Northern Ireland, which enjoins counsel not to give their clients to understand that such discussions have taken place or inform them of their contents. This instruction may be appropriate where discussion about sentences frequently takes place, but less so if it is restricted in the way which we now propound.

23. It is also the regular practice in England that such discussions in chambers should where possible be recorded by a shorthand writer, and where this is not feasible a note should be made by the judge or sent to him for agreement if made by counsel.

24. The practice in our courts has until now been one of rather more ready access by counsel to the judge and freer discussion about sentence. This seems to have been on the increase in recent years. It appears to us that requests by counsel to see judges have become materially more frequent than they used to be and that in some courts it has come to be regarded as a standard and routine practice in virtually every case. We would draw attention to the views which we expressed in Re McFarland’s Application (2000, unreported):

25. We consider that the primacy of the principle of open justice has been in danger of erosion in consequence of the extent to which discussions in chambers have been held in recent years. It is of some importance that it should be reaffirmed and the practice reviewed accordingly, not least because of the emphasis in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on the principle that as part of a fair trial all proceedings in criminal trials should in general take place in public.

26. We would therefore propound for the guidance of sentencers in courts at all levels the following rules of practice governing discussions in chambers (references to judges are intended to include magistrates and references to counsel to include solicitors acting as advocates):

27. We appreciate that this guidance represents a shift in practice to a more structured and less open style of discussion than that which has hitherto been the norm, but we are satisfied that it is necessary to move in that direction.

28. We shall quash the sentences imposed on the offender and substitute those which we have set out. We direct that he surrender to custody within 48 hours.