Road traffic - Non-custodial sentence - Careless driving - Defendant Olympic star driving down wrong side of road and colliding with vehicle

R v Christie: CA (Crim Div) (Mr Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Blair (judgment delivered extempore): 13 January 2012

The defendant, 51, was a former British Olympic champion. On 8 May 2010, the defendant was driving his car along a road near his home. He had lived in the US shortly before and had recently moved to the area. The defendant drove a short distance to a supermarket. Realising it was closed, he drove from the forecourt of the supermarket onto the main road. He failed to notice a vehicle approaching travelling in the same direction on the road.

The driver of the vehicle was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant then pulled onto an A-road and drove on the wrong side of the carriageway for some 185m. A taxi carrying passengers, including a newly wed couple, was travelling along the same road. It collided with the defendant’s vehicle almost head on causing serious injuries to the driver and his passengers. The defendant remained at the scene and contacted the emergency services. The driver sustained fractures to his elbow, wrist, legs and ankle. One passenger sustained broken ribs and a punctured lung, and another sustained a broken leg and hip and facial fractures that required significant surgical intervention.

The defendant was arrested and charged with dangerous driving. In interview, he admitted being involved in the accident and he later indicated his willingness to plead guilty to the alternative charge, namely careless driving. That offer was rejected by the prosecution and the defendant was subsequently tried for dangerous driving. He was convicted by a jury of the alternative offence of careless driving. He was sentenced to a fine of £5,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1,000. He was also disqualified from driving for 15 months. At the time of sentencing, the judge had noted that the defendant had, at the time of the accident, been at a low emotional ebb for personal reasons. The defendant appealed against sentence.

He submitted that the sentence which imposed the maximum fine was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. He further submitted that the period of disqualification was disproportionate to his culpability. Consideration was given to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and to the guidelines of the Sentencing Guidelines Council (the guidelines). The appeal would be allowed in part.

In the instant case, there had been a bad case of driving which could properly be described as bordering on dangerous. The defendant had pulled out onto a main road into the path of a vehicle travelling in the same direction. He had driven on the wrong side of the road before colliding head on with another vehicle causing serious injuries and consequences for three people. Those were relevant aggravating factors.

Under the 2003 act, culpability and harm were within the axis of sentencing for road traffic offences. However, other aggravating features were absent, such as excessive speed and alcohol, and the defendant had acknowledged his involvement in the accident. That was a positive mitigating feature of the case. Further, he had recently moved house having worked for a period in the US. Moreover, as the instant case did not fall into the worst category of cases of careless driving, it had been wrong to impose the maximum fine for the offence.

Having regard to the defendant’s means, the guidelines, the proffered guilty plea and to all the circumstances, the fine imposed was manifestly excessive. However, the offer of a guilty plea to the offence could not impact on the length of the period of disqualification from driving and authority showed that the period of disqualification that had been imposed was not excessive. The fine of £5,000 would be quashed and substituted by a fine of £3,000, with a period of 42 days’ imprisonment in default. R v Simmonds [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 18 applied; R v Holman [2010] EWCA Crim 107 applied.

Ben Maguire (instructed by Burton Copeland Solicitors) for the defendant.