Key Facts
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking (count 2) and three counts of common assault (counts 4, 5, and 6).
- •Appellant had a tumultuous relationship with Lilian Hill, involving assaults and the destruction of her mother's car.
- •Appellant was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment (15 months for count 2, and 2 months consecutively for each assault).
- •Appellant received a 34-month driving ban and a 5-year restraining order.
- •Appellant appealed against the 15-month sentence for aggravated vehicle taking.
- •Appellant has 27 previous convictions for 63 offences, including domestic violence.
- •Appellant is the primary carer for his brother with dementia.
- •The judge did not consider the caring responsibilities as a mitigating factor.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for aggravated vehicle taking for Magistrates' Courts are not binding on Crown Court judges.
Sentencing guidelines
Section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020 allows the court to determine whether a pre-appeal report is necessary.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 33
The significance of caring responsibilities as a mitigating factor depends on the circumstances of the case.
Court's own judgment
When the statutory maximum sentence is relatively low, a bunching effect is to be expected for sentences approaching the maximum.
Established case law
R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455; R v Morrison [2021] EWCA Crim 917 and section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 guide the court in determining driving bans.
R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455; R v Morrison [2021] EWCA Crim 917; Criminal Appeals Act 1968, section 11(3)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed, except for a minor reduction in the driving ban.
The overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, including the impact on the victim and the appellant's previous convictions. The reduction in the driving ban was due to a technicality identified.