[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 >> Palmer, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1316 (12 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1316.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 1316

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		12 May 2011

1. LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD: Treacy J will give the judgment of the court.
2. MR JUSTICE TREACY: This applicant, Anthony James Palmer, renews his application for leave to appeal sentence after refusal by the single judge. He pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Northampton, and was subsequently sentenced on 4 January 2011 in this way: for an offence of dangerous driving, he received a term of 15 months' imprisonment. He admitted offences pursuant to the procedure under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Those were offences of driving with excess alcohol, using a vehicle without insurance and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. The judge imposed no separate penalty for those matters, although plainly they provide context for the sentencing exercise in relation to the dangerous driving.
3. The total sentence of the court therefore was one of 15 months' imprisonment. There was a disqualification imposed for a period of three years, with an order to take an extended retest.
4. The facts briefly put are that in the early hours of 8 August 2010 uniformed officers in an unmarked vehicle saw the applicant driving a motor car at speed on an A road in Northamptonshire. They followed him. The applicant reached speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour. As they approached an interchange, the officers illuminated lights on their vehicle and sounded a siren on their car. The applicant failed to stop, but did eventually halt at a set of red lights. One of the officers ran to the applicant's vehicle, but the applicant drove off at speed and drove on to the M1 motorway.
5. He was then pursued on the motorway for a distance of about two miles, reaching speeds of about 90 miles an hour. The total distance of the pursuit was some eight miles or so. It lasted around five minutes. When apprehended, the officers could smell alcohol on the applicant's breath and he was arrested. A breathalyser procedure took place at the police station and the reading was some 81 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is of course 35. When interviewed, the applicant said he had drunk seven or eight pints of cider.
6. The applicant is 23 years of age. He has on his record some 12 convictions for 23 offences, recorded between 2004 and 2008. Significantly, in August 2006 he was convicted of offences of dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol and taking a vehicle without consent. He received a total of nine months' detention in a Young Offender Institution for those matters. The sentencing judge had a pre-sentence report and two character references available to him.
7. The grounds of appeal submit that the sentence was too long. In particular, insufficient credit was given for the guilty plea, the fact that no injury or damage was caused by the applicant's driving, and that traffic was not heavy at the time of the offending. It is also pointed out that the applicant eventually stopped of his own volition.
8. In our judgment, these grounds of appeal are wholly unconvincing. Whilst credit was due for a guilty plea, there were a number of considerable aggravating features. These are the high speeds at which the applicant drove, the failure to stop when required by the police, the length of the chase, and the other associated offences, no insurance or driving licence, and driving with more than twice the legal limit for alcohol in the blood. Moreover, the previous relevant convictions already alluded to involved a police chase and are plainly aggravating features.
9. In all those circumstances, in our judgment, it is simply unarguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Accordingly, this application is refused.