Court Report: 20th and 28th August 2020 @ Snaresbrook Crown Court
Two cases of dangerous driving for consideration here and both were heard on different days before different judges. There is no doubt that each warranted a custodial sentence but the question that the court had to grapple with is whether that sentence should be suspended or not.
Suspension means the defendant doesn’t go to prison immediately but if they reoffend within a set amount of time then the sentence can be activated.
In one of these cases the sentence was suspended and the defendant walked out the court a free man. In the other he was taken down to the cells before being transported to HMP Pentonville.
Judges will use the guidelines set out by the Sentencing Council:
The factors against include:
- Offender presents a risk/danger to the public
- Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody
- History of poor compliance with court orders
The factors for include:
- Realistic prospect of rehabilitation
- Strong personal mitigation
- Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others
The first case is in court 9 on Aug 20th 2020 at Snaresbrook Crown Court before His Honour Judge P Southern and it’s a midday sentencing of a 33-year-old Mr SJ.
SJ has been out on bail and so walked in through the front door. He’s brought what looks an overnight bag just in case his departure is instead by prison van. A real possibility in a case such as this.
SJ has been indicted on one count of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.
The court hears that on Friday 1st February 2019 SJ had been out socialising with some colleagues after work. Subsequent testing by the police indicated no presence of alcohol in his system.
Unfortunately, after missing the last train back from London he takes a taxi to Rainham Station in Essex where he picks up his car at about 00.50am and begins the short drive home. A journey we’re told he has taken on many occasions.
He is driving along Lambs Lane South which he does at speed – data downloaded from his car indicate a peak of 59mph. He approaches the junction with New Road and is required to give way.
Tragically and without explanation SJ (red arrow) did not give way instead treating the junction like a corner.
Coming along New Road is the victim Mr ‘TD’ in a van (green arrow). SJ is travelling at 52mph when they collide. The van spins round on the verge and the driver sustains serious injuries including a fractured pelvis and spine. He ends up in hospital for 6 weeks. The vehicle SJ is in ends up on its roof someway down the road.
It’s explained that the victim wasn’t wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident but expert reports state that as his van was hit from the side at speed, he could have still ended up just as badly injured.
SJ is interviewed and initially says he stopped at the junction and looked both ways. He pled not-guilty at the Pre-Trial Prep Hearing (PTPH). He changed his plea when more evidence came to light – CCTV from a neighbouring house, dash-cam footage from another driver and the data download from the defendant’s vehicle.
TD made a victim impact statement on 9/5/2020. He explained that every area of his life had changed. He is now largely housebound and as a result of the accident has closed his business and separated from his wife. He describes being in constant pain even when making a cup of tea. It was described that the victim’s life has been ruined.
The court hears that there’s no sentencing guidelines for this offence, but the right approach is to look at death by dangerous driving and calculate down.
In mitigation the defendant is described as “wholly remorseful”. He is 35 years old and has not been in trouble before. He is at a “total loss” why he drove across that junction and has deep regrets every day.
SJ is an intelligent man who obtained a first class degree in Mobile Communications in 2009 graduating with distinction and has worked in the industry since. He’s been told he will lose his job if he gets a prison sentence.
His wife is in court today too, she works as a Doctor for the NHS and is reliant on her husband for driving her to work. We hear she would struggle to pay the joint mortgage if he loses his job.
The court hears how his parents in India gave him a substantial amount of money for a deposit on the family home and their pension is effectively him paying them back £5k every 6 months.
Further we hear SJ and his wife are expecting a baby in March 2021 and that she is desperate to keep him at home for that.
After all submissions are made His Honour Judge P Southern spends a few minutes in consideration. He spends that time making notes and cross-referencing the many documents that are spread out on the bench. The court is in complete silence and there is a palpable tension in the air.
The sentence is handed down at 13.05, no doubt shortening the courts lunch break.
“It is nothing short of a tragedy that you’re here today” begins the Judge. “It is abundantly clear you’re a thoroughly decent individual”.
The judge describes the “catastrophic injuries” TD has suffered and how they “have changed his life forever”. TD was an active man in the prime of his life who ran a Civil Engineering Sales business which had closed down.
If sent to prison SJ faces losing his job, his house, his parents house and potentially missing the birth of his first child.
The sentence handed down is one of 14 months in prison and disqualified from driving for 24 months.
But is it appropriate to suspend the sentence?
The second case for consideration is that of 23-year old Mr RD sitting in Court 10 before His Honour Judge M Shanks on 28/08/2020.
The judge seems surprised that the parties are here in person and apologises for being unrobed as he expected to be on Skype.
We start 15 minutes late as we’re waiting for a dock officer to appear.
RD is before the court on 5 counts which can best be listed by describing the incident:
On 14th Feb 2020 RD is driving his friends car and encounters a group of police stopping cars at random. He’s signalled to pull over but fails to do so (“Failing to Stop”). He continues driving but stops a short time later behind stationary traffic at a red light.
The court is shown body-worn footage of an officer on foot approaching the drivers side window and telling the driver to get out. Meanwhile two additional officers pull up alongside RD in a marked car and also go to the driver’s side window.
The window is smashed with a baton but attempts to restrain the driver are unsuccessful as he suddenly reverses at speed (“Dangerous Driving”), one of the Police officers is knocked over landing in the smashed glass on the floor. The other two officers sustain injuries as well (“Three instances of Assaulting an Emergency Worker”). As the vehicle is reversed it makes contact with the police car (“Criminal Damage”) causing several thousand pounds worth of damage.
RD escapes from the police and abandoned the vehicle a short distance away. Upon hearing from his mother that he is wanted by the police he hands himself in at the police station.
At the station RD gives a full comment interview and claims that he panicked after seeing the officers as he had no insurance. (“Driving without insurance”).
The suggestion that RD might have had other reasons for not wanting the police to stop him is not a submission that made to the court.
We hear of the injuries sustained by the officers:
PC ‘R’ had his fingers bent backwards and was in immense pain.
PC ‘A’ Fell on the broken glass and suffered pain in his right foot and arm
PC ‘H’ Had swelling on the back of his elbow.
RD expressed remorse and said he intended no injuries.
This is not the first time RD has appeared before the court. In March 2019 he shone a laser at a police helicopter, an action described by HHJ Shanks as sounding “incredibly dangerous”.
RD was actually in court for the laser matter the day before the driving incident. It seems unfortunate that as he was sentenced for the laser matter in March 2020 the suspended sentence received for that could not be activated for the driving offense committed one month prior.
This judge adjourned the hearing over lunch returning at 14.00.
In handing down the sentence the judge empathises with RD saying “I don’t know what I’d do if I was shouted at like that” … “These guys came at him with these battens”.
The judge describes the counts as reckless rather than intentional and describes the actions of RD as a “panic gone wrong” which was a “foolish decision” in a “fraught situation”.
The judge considers that RD is the full time carer of his mother and has given up employment to care for her. “It must be quite hard on a young man”.
His actions were described as “incredibly dangerous when surrounded by officers and could have been a lot worse”.
Aggravating factors include the involvement of the police and that this occurred whilst he was on bail for the laser incident.
The sentence for the headline offence is 18 months reduced to 12 for the early guilty plea. All the other charges to run concurrently.
As one is sat in court one ponders the similarities to the PC Harper Case. There has been strong public criticism of the alleged lenient sentences imposed with the BBC quoting Suella Braverman QC as saying attacks against emergency workers should be “punished with the greatest severity”.
But what’s a Judge to do – should he suspend the sentence?
Mouse in the Court 