Downs, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 1654
[1]"I wanted to get home before it gets dark because of my eyes in the dark, being[2]so tired and on my meds, I just can't see." "I can barely drive. It' not safe at night." visibility. There was patchy mist in places. impaired as hers was. appeared to be in a state of shock. "Mathew Lind and James Morden were two young men in the prime of their lives. They were much loved, each with a wide circle of family and friends and I have heard and read deeply moving evidence of the impact caused by their loss on those left behind. The devastation for all of them, Lauren Maynard, in particular, it is almost impossible to contemplate and lives have been changed forever. No sentence that this court passes will ease their sufferingand it is also important that everybody understands that the sentence I pass in no way reflects, as it were, the value of the loss of those two, clearly, very fine men. It is meant simply to reflect your culpability for their deaths set against what is the statutory maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment." with that assessment. It is an aggravating factor that the appellant's driving resulted in two deaths. The judge also treated her speed as an aggravating factor, on the basis that it was unreasonable for her to drive at that speed with her impaired eyesight. however, that she had detected no real remorse on the appellant's part. delicately and tentatively, that it might have been a factor. We do not agree. be affected by a custodial sentence. We have obtained a Pre-Sentence Report which confirms the adverse effects on the children of their mother's imprisonment and also indicates that she has now shown remorse for, and insight into, what she did. We have also considered a letter from the head of the school attended by some of her children, from which it appears that her son, who is currently in year three, is experiencing particular difficulties, given his diagnosis with autism. guidelines. months' starting point identified in the Guidelines. it excessive was the appellant's impaired eyesight and it was the fact that she drove with her impaired eyesight which put her case into the highest category in the first place. give appropriate credit for the mitigating factors. of approach in sentencing and for this purpose must give effect to the guidance published by the Sentencing Council. sentence of imprisonment. The Registrar has pointed out that, pursuant to section 35A(4)(h) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the appropriate extension period which the judge referred to as the uplift was in fact 21 months, ie one half of the custodial sentence of three and a half years, or 42 months. Given that we have reduced her period of imprisonment, that part of her disqualification will be reduced to 15 months, ie one half of two and a half years, or 30 months. was too fast in the light of her impaired eyesight. to take an extended re-test remains. LORD JUSTICE SIMON: Thank you for your submissions. MR JENKINS: Thank you, my Lords. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1AB Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk