Causing death by dangerous driving – Mobile telephones – Mitigation – Undue leniency

Attorney general’s reference (no 17 of 2009), sub nom R v Phillipa Curtis: CA (Crim Div) (Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Lloyd-Jones, Mr Justice Wyn Williams): 30 April 2009

The attorney general referred as unduly lenient a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment imposed on an offender (C) for causing death by dangerous driving.

C had been driving along A-roads and motorways at 70mph when she collided into the back of a stationary car in which the driver (V) was sitting. V received fatal injuries and died at the scene. During C’s journey she had read, received and sent a total of 20 text messages. She did not have a hands-free device and had not stopped her car. It was estimated that, just a few minutes before the collision, C had made a short phone call. The lights of the stationary car were on and it was estimated that it would have been visible to C for 250 metres before the collision. C stated that she did not see the stationary car. C admitted to using her phone during the journey but stated that she had not used it at the time of the collision.

A pre-sentence report described C’s genuine remorse, high level of empathy with V and her family, and her acceptance of her culpability. The court was provided with many letters providing positive statements of C’s good character as well as an insight into the catastrophic effects that the collision had had on V’s family.

The judge was unable to accept that the mobile phone usage had no bearing on the collision. The attorney general submitted that the sentence was unduly lenient as C had been using her mobile phone to call, read, receive and write text messages while travelling at high speeds on major roads.

Held: C had chosen to ignore the law that had been enacted to improve safety on the roads and custody was inevitable. The only question was the sentence length.

C was a young woman of positive good character with powerful mitigation. It was first important to decipher whether, at the time of the collision, C had been using her phone. The unread text message sent perhaps 30 seconds before the collision proved that, immediately before the collision, C had not been using her phone. Arguably, the sentence was unduly lenient and C could not avoid the conclusion that it was much less likely that she would have been distracted if she had never used her phone. However, in the circumstances, it was not appropriate to increase the sentence.

Sentence not varied.

J Laidlaw for the attorney general; R Latham QC for the offender.