[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Chalcraft, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 1389 (17 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/1389.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Crim 1389

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		17 May 2007

1. JUDGE LORAINE-SMITH: On 23rd February 2007 at the Crown Court at Guildford before His Honour Judge Addison, after a three day trial, this appellant was convicted of dangerous driving and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He was disqualified from driving for four years and ordered thereafter to take an extended retest. We understand that he has now served that custodial sentence. He appeals with leave of the single judge, that appeal having been limited to the period of disqualification.
2. The facts were as follows. At about 3.45 pm on 25th January 2005, the appellant was driving his firm's white van on the M25 between junctions 13 and 14 when he became involved in a road rage incident with an unknown driver of a blue car. Over a distance of between five and seven miles both drivers were seen lane hopping, tailgating each other's vehicles and undertaking each other. The incident ended with the appellant stopping his van in the fast lane of the motorway in the front of the other car, causing it to brake very sharply. The traffic behind them built up and two vehicles which were in the next lane were involved in a minor collision. Other motorists blocked the appellant's van in, preventing him leaving the scene, but the driver of the blue car was able to manoeuvre his car and drive off and he was never identified.
3. The appellant was clearly very angry about the conduct of the driver of that car. He was subsequently arrested. When interviewed he did not accept that his driving had been dangerous and said he had cut in front of the blue car and brought him to a halt because he wanted to ask him what his game was. That was the account which was put forward at trial and rejected by the jury.
4. When sentencing, the judge said this:

"This was a bad case of road rage and a deliberate piece of very bad driving. You showed no remorse at the time and you have shown none since. You contested the case, saying that you stopped in front of the other car, in effect, as a good citizen to get him off the road.

Well, I don't accept that. I am quite satisfied that you stopped in temper, intending to have it out with him."

The judge said that it was unnecessary in the circumstances to obtain a pre-sentence report because he would not be assisted by it. He imposed an immediate custodial sentence of three months and disqualified the appellant for four years, which is the subject of this appeal.

5. The appellant is now 41. He has previous convictions which occurred during the 1980s and include taking a conveyance without authority for which he was fined and two offences of driving whilst disqualified for which he was sentenced to a community service order of 200 hours and imprisonment for three months. There have been no offences recorded since 1987.
6. At the time of this offence he was working for a pest control company. That employment required his ability to drive. We are told today that he has lost that employment, no doubt as a result of this conviction. He and his wife live in an area to which public transport is very limited. The nearest public transport we are told is three miles away and their home is 16 miles from the nearest large town. His wife works, we are told, although does not earn a great deal and we learn from the written grounds of appeal that she suffers from Crohn's disease and requires regular hospital visits.
7. We have in the course of this appeal had our attention drawn to the case of Chivers. This was an appeal at this court on 17th August 2005 before David Clarke J. In that case the judgment reads as follows:

"This is a man whose living is based upon his driving. He works on the docks in relation to the importation of cars. He has to drive to carry on that job. There is an important principle in respect of the imposition of periods of disqualification that they should not, except in exceptionally severe cases, be so long as to impair prospects of rehabilitation, with the impact that that can have on the family of the offender as well as on him. It does seem to us that the period of disqualification which was imposed here was substantially too high."

That period was a disqualification from driving for five years following what everybody agreed was a very bad period of driving for which he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

8. This present appeal featured a bad case of dangerous driving which fully deserved the custodial sentence that the judge passed. However, there was no suggestion that this was anything other than a one-off offence and the judge gave no reasons for imposing the period of disqualification that he did. We think that the period of four years was excessive and in the light of what we have been told by Mr Dahlsen today, we think that the appropriate period would be one of 18 months and we allow the appeal to that extent. He may not drive until he has passed an extended driving test.