Court Upholds Sentence in R v Jack Kenneth Darren Lomas - Applying Sentencing Principles for Dangerous Driving Offences

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1436
Judgment on


In the recent judicial decision of R v Jack Kenneth Darren Lomas [2023] EWCA Crim 1436, the Court of Appeal addressed an appeal against a sentence imposed for offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. This case presents an application of sentencing principles, considerations of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the implications of changes in the law with respect to parole eligibility.

Key Facts

Jack Lomas pleaded guilty to causing the death of Mortimus Roy Jones and the serious injury of Shannon Ratcliffe by dangerous driving. After consuming alcohol, Lomas drove his vehicle at high speeds within a residential area, resulting in a collision that led to fatal injuries to Mr. Jones and serious injuries to Ms. Ratcliffe. Lomas was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment for the death and a concurrent sentence of 2 years and 8 months for the serious injury, with an extended disqualification from driving.

The court applied several legal principles in reaching its decision:

  1. Sentencing Guidelines: The judge adhered to the sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving, correctly placing the offence in category A due to Lomas’s flagrant disregard for the safety of others.

  2. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: Aggravating factors, including driving under the influence of alcohol and ignoring passenger pleas, warranted an elevation from the starting point within category A. Mitigating factors, such as genuine remorse and plea at an early opportunity, were considered but had limited impact on reducing the sentence.

  3. Maximum Sentence and Proportionality: Given the severity of the offence, the court noted that a sentence close to the maximum allowable for the offence could be justified, aligned with the principle expressed in R v Robert Brown, indicating that the top of the sentencing range is not exclusive to exceptional cases but can apply to serious enough offences.

  4. Concurrent Sentences: Aligning with sentencing principles, the court imposed concurrent sentences for the offences as they both arose from a single incident, a point affirmed by rectifying Mr. Watkins’s query referencing R v Robert Brown.

  5. Changes in Parole Eligibility: The change in the law requiring offenders to serve two-thirds of the sentence before becoming eligible for parole, rather than the previous half, was not considered a relevant factor in determining the original sentence.


The Appeal Court confirmed that the judge meticulously analyzed the relevant factors and guidelines, rightfully placing the case in category A and identifying valid aggravating features. The sentence imposed was deemed appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the offence. The Appeal Court held that although the sentence approached the statutory maximum, it was proportionate to the offence’s seriousness. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.


The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Jack Kenneth Darren Lomas illustrates the application of sentencing guidelines and the consequential consideration of a broad spectrum of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court’s dismissal of Lomas’s appeal reaffirms the approach that serious offences, especially those resulting in death and significant injury due to dangerous driving, can warrant sentences close to the statutory maximum, irrespective of the possibility of graver scenarios. This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and public safety on UK roads.

Related Summaries