REGINA v FABIAN ROBERT JOSEPH [2001] EWCA Crim 1195

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
[2001] EWCA Crim 1195Case No No: 200006645/X2Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Between
REGINAFABIAN ROBERT JOSEPH
Before
The Vice PresidentLord Justice RoseMr Justice LevesonMr Justice MittingMR D WEIR appeared on behalf of the AppellantDate 1 May 2001
[1]MR JUSTICE LEVESON: On 20th October 2000 in the Crown Court at Isleworth, this appellant was convicted, after a trial, of dangerous driving. On 10th November he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Copley to a term of 15 months' imprisonment and was disqualified from obtaining or holding a driving licence for 2 years, being required thereafter to take an extended re-test. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the Single Judge.[2]The facts are important. On 14th October 1999, the appellant parked his Cherokee jeep illegally outside a bingo hall in Hounslow. A parking attendant went across to the vehicle to issue a ticket but, the appellant saw him, crossed the road and began a heated argument with him.[3]According to the attendant, the appellant then got into his vehicle, turned the wheel towards the attendant and drove it at him. The attendant slid onto the bonnet of the vehicle and was carried for 150 yards down the road. He then got off the vehicle and the appellant drove off. The attendant received a cut finger and suffered some pain in his back and ribs. He did not require hospital treatment.[4]An independent witness had seen the vehicle being driven by the appellant with the traffic warden on the bonnet, and saw that the jeep was weaving and that it appeared to accelerate at the time.[5]On 19th January, the appellant surrendered to the police and was arrested. When interviewed, he accepted that the vehicle had been illegally parked and that he had had an argument with the attendant, but he denied driving at him and said that the attendant had jumped on the bonnet of the jeep whilst he was driving away. He also denied accelerating whilst the attendant was on the bonnet and said that he had fallen off the jeep when he turned round the corner and stopped.[6]He gave evidence to like effect, calling his passenger to corroborate parts of his account.[7]After the conviction, the judge, who of course had had the benefit of seeing both the parking attendant and the appellant, said this:
"It is as plain as a pikestaff to me, as it clearly was to the jury, that this was a very deliberate act on your part, driving, as I say, at the traffic warden, and driving off with him on your bonnet and continuing along the road and along the side road, increasing speed until it was plain that you could not shake him off, as you tried to do on the evidence of Mr Evans, weaving from side to side, and you slowed down to enable him to jump off. A terrifying experience for him. Those public servants who are employed to ensure that the highways are kept clear of vehicles illegally parked do an unpopular job and have to put up with all sorts of abuse, both verbal and occasionally, sad to say, physical, from disgruntled motorists, who object to being given a parking ticket when they parked illegally. Those public servants, however unpopular motorists might find them to be, are carrying out an important public duty. If everybody could parked where they liked the roads would be even more congested than they are now. Those public servants deserve the protection of the courts, so far as the courts can give them protection, by making certain that it is well known that those who drive in this way and behave in this way towards such public servants will receive substantial periods of custody, not only to punish those who commit these offences but as a deterrent to others. Attacks on traffic wardens of one sort or another are all too prevalent."
[8]He then referred to the sadness of seeing a man in the dock, who had built up his own business and in respect of whom was, for these purposes, a man of good character. He said that he took into account the matters contained in the pre-sentence report and those advanced in mitigation but felt driven to pass the sentence to which we have referred.[9]This Court endorses the observations of the learned judge. Parking attendants, in particular, are subject to vilification and abuse if not worse. It is a very real reflection on the hazards of the job that this particular parking attendant felt it appropriate to carry a tape recorder with him to record what happened when confronted by angry motorists. The fact that others have complained about this particular attendant does not take this appellant's position or the character of his driving any further. An immediate custodial sentence, in the form of a deterrent sentence, which inevitably pays less attention to the individual circumstances of the offender was both proper and, in our judgment, inevitable.[10]Need it have been as long as 15 months' imprisonment, bearing in mind the maximum for dangerous driving is 2 years? Counsel has referred us to R v Charlton (1995) 16 Cr App R(S) 703, which was a case in which a motorist drove at a traffic warden after an altercation that motorist pleaded guilty to offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and careless driving. An allegation of dangerous driving was not pursued. His sentence of 6 months' imprisonment was upheld in this Court.[11]This case is more serious, with the element of weaving which could only have been directed to causing the attendant to fall from the car. Further, this appellant does not have the benefit of admission of the offence or any recognition of the gravity of his conduct, although before us today Mr Weir has made it clear that the appellant does indeed accept the seriousness of what he did. Although in the main, the personal circumstances of an offender in circumstances such as these, do not carry as much attention as in other cases, as we have said, it ought to be noted that the consequences of this sentence have been dramatic indeed. The appellant's business has apparently gone in to bankruptcy and there have been other very real personnel consequences.[12]Having regard to all the circumstances, we consider that the sentence imposed by the learned judge did exceed the upper part of the bracket appropriate for the nature of this driving. In the circumstances, we alter the sentence by quashing the period of 15 months' imprisonment and substituting one of 10 months. To that extent, this appeal is allowed. Needless to say the disqualification and order for an extended retest remain untouched.

Cited in 1 later judgment