R v Finley Wood [2025] EWCA Crim 1257

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

[2025] EWCA Crim 1257

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Date Wednesday 6 August 2025

Before

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS

MR JUSTICE HILLIARD

SIR ROBIN SPENCER

Between

REXCrown

Between

FINLEY WOOD

__________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

Ms Debra White appeared for Appellant.

Ms Ember-Jade Wong appeared for Crown.

JUDGMENT

(As approved)

SIR ROBIN SPENCER:

[1]This is an appeal against sentence brought by leave of the Single Judge.

[2]On 2 August 2024 in the Crown Court at Chester, the appellant (who is now aged 22) pleaded guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (count 1). and to three offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving (counts 2, 3 and 4), contrary to section 1A of the same Act. On 20 September 2024, the appellant was sentenced by HHJ Steven Everett, the Recorder of Chester, to a total of 10 years 6 months' imprisonment. That was the sentence imposed on count 1, which was expressed also to reflect the criminality of the offences in the other three counts on which concurrent sentences of 3 years' imprisonment were imposed. The appellant was disqualified from driving for a period of 12 years and until he passes an extended re-test.

[3]The grounds of appeal, in short, are that the judge should have allowed full credit of one-third for the guilty pleas rather than 25 per cent, that the judge failed to give sufficient credit for the appellant's strong personal mitigation, and that in consequence the sentence was manifestly excessive. The facts

[4]The fatal road traffic accident took place on 9 April 2023, Easter Sunday. The appellant lived with his family in Whitchurch, Shropshire. At around 6 pm that evening he met up with several friends at the White Lion public house in Ash Magna, a village just outside Whitchurch, and agreed to give them a lift in his Ford Fiesta to the Jazz Fest music festival in Nantwich, over the border in Cheshire, about 10 miles away. At this time the appellant was just 20 years old. His twentieth birthday had been 2 months earlier on 11 February.

[5]The young man who died, Felix Davies, was 19 years old. He was the front seat passenger in the Fiesta. There were three passengers in the rear of the car, Fin Hares (aged 18), Daniel Kettle (aged 23) and Isobel Smith (aged 19). Another friend of the group, Matthew Williams, was in a separate vehicle, a Nissan Navara, a larger and more powerful vehicle. It was he who set off from the public house first. The appellant was following him in the Fiesta.

[6]The route was along rural single carriageway roads. It was daylight, the weather was fine and the traffic was comparatively light. Throughout the journey the appellant appeared to be trying to keep up with Matthew Williams's vehicle which was some distance ahead. The appellant would put his foot down and try to overtake vehicles on the straight stretches of road. The passengers in the rear became concerned at the way the appellant was driving.

[7]Isobel Smith, who was the rear offside passenger sitting immediately behind the driver, described the appellant as driving fast, showing off and driving at a stupid speed around corners. Both she and Daniel Kettle, who was sitting in the middle of the back seat, told the appellant to slow down and warned him that he was driving too fast. Isobel Smith recalled the appellant driving at 40 miles per hour around a particularly treacherous corner. Daniel Kettle says that the appellant's driving made him feel very nervous. It was far too quick for the road conditions.

[8]The appellant had to stop at a T-junction in order to turn right onto the A525 towards Nantwich. As he waited for an opportunity to make that turn, the appellant would have been aware that Matthew Williams’s vehicle had already negotiated the junction and was some distance ahead on the A525. Almost immediately after joining the major road the appellant overtook a 4 x 4 vehicle on a straight stretch. Thereafter there were bends in the road. Isobel Smith and Daniel Kettle told the appellant to slow down several times. She remembered thinking there was no way they were going to make it round the corner they were approaching.

[9]Fin Hares, who was the rear nearside passenger, described the appellant's driving getting faster and faster on the A525. He remembers looking at the speedometer after the appellant had overtaken the 4 x 4. It was showing 90 miles per hour.

[10]The scene of the accident was just after the junction for Combermere Abbey. The stretch of road leading to the site of the collision was a sweeping bend to the left followed by a sharper bend to the right with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. The appellant was going much too fast for the bend, which was well signed. The appellant was straddling the solid double white lines in the middle of the road. There were two oncoming vehicles. Isobel Smith noticed that the appellant at this point was driving with just two fingers of his left hand on the bottom of the steering wheel and holding a vape in his other hand. On seeing the oncoming vehicles the appellant swerved to avoid them. He lost control of the vehicle. The Fiesta went up the grass verge and collided with a tree. It then spun round back across the road into the offside verge.

[11]We have seen the post-accident photographs of the Fiesta. It had suffered massive damage with the front nearside totally crushed in. Because it was a three-door car the passengers in the rear were trapped. The appellant was able to get out of the vehicle, having sustained only minor injuries himself. He helped Isobel Smith and Daniel Kettle to get out of the vehicle but both of them were very seriously injured. The third rear seat passenger, Fin Hares, was stretched over in his seat. It was the front seat passenger, Felix Davies, who bore the brunt of the impact damage sustaining fatal injuries.

[12]Isobel Smith called 999. The appellant phoned his parents and his father soon attended the scene and rendered assistance, comforting Felix Davies. Other vehicles had stopped and members of the public were also assisting Felix Davies. The emergency services were able to remove him from the vehicle onto a spinal board awaiting transfer to hospital. An air ambulance arrived. Everything that could be done to save his life was done but he died soon afterwards at the scene from his catastrophic injuries.

[13]The middle seat passenger, Daniel Kettle, sustained serious head injuries. A CT scan showed bleeding on both sides of the brain as well as air within the brain. He had fractures to the bones of the forehead and to both sides of the skull, fractures of both eye sockets and multiple fractures of the cheekbones and nose. There was also damage to his lungs and the large bowel. His hip was dislocated.

[14]Fin Hares sustained injuries to the head, ribs and hip. There were fractures to the bones of the face and the right eye socket. He had three fractured ribs and a broken nose. The right thigh bone had been pushed out of the hip joint and he had to undergo emergency surgery to put the bone back in place. The right eyeball was protruding from its socket.

[15]Isobel Smith sustained a fracture to the sternum and a possible fractures to the collar bone and right shoulder. She had tenderness to the spine, shoulder, chest, abdomen and pelvis. She was referred to the spinal and neurosurgery team because of numbness in the back and pain on moving her hips.

[16]The police carried out roadside breath and drug tests on the appellant. Both were negative. The appellant was arrested at the scene at 7 pm whilst undergoing treatment in an ambulance for his minor injuries.

[17]The appellant was interviewed by the police the following day. He was asked a series of standard questions in relation to his eyesight, any use of a mobile phone, and any use of recreational drugs. He answered these questions and thereafter made no comment.

[18]The full investigation of this fatal road traffic accident took several months to complete. We have seen and studied the report of the forensic collision investigation unit. We have also watched the helpful multi-media video presentation prepared by the police, consisting of extracts of CCTV footage at the public house before the vehicles set off, glimpses of the vehicles from roadside properties which the Nissan and the Fiesta passed along the route and, by way of reconstruction, a dashboard video recording of the route the appellant took to the scene of the collision, a distance of about 4 miles.

[19]There was no mechanical defect with the Fiesta. On the approach to the bend where the collision took place there was a series of signs warning of the right-hand bend ahead, as well as double solid white lines for over 400 metres. The conclusion of the report was that the appellant had been unable to maintain the vehicle's position in the road as he negotiated the bend, owing probably to a combination of excessive speed, poor steering and incorrect road positioning. From skid marks and the like it was calculated that the appellant's speed as he attempted to negotiate the bend would have been between 69 and 72 miles per hour, and probably closer to the latter.

[20]It was not until 21 May 2024, 13 months later, that the appellant was served by postal requisition with notice of the charges he would face. His first appearance in the magistrates' court was to be on 25 June 2024.

[21]We note in passing that the documentation which was sent to the appellant when he was served with notice of the charges included the following useful information about the court procedure and about the case :

"If you or your solicitor want the details in advance you must contact the prosecutor", and under the heading "

Reduced punishment for guilty plea": “The earlier you tell the court you are going to plead guilty the more the punishment is likely to be reduced".

[22]The magistrates' court hearing went ahead on 25 June 2024. No indication of guilty pleas was given at that stage, an issue to which we shall return in more detail shortly.

[23]At the first hearing in the Crown Court the appellant pleaded guilty to all four counts on the indictment, entitling him to 25 per cent credit. The case was adjourned for reports. The sentencing hearing took place on 20 September 2024. The sentencing hearing

[24]There were victim personal statements from the parents and stepmother of the deceased, Felix Davies. They painted a picture of a loving, supportive hard working, joyful young man. As the judge said in passing sentence, it is difficult even to begin to calculate the grief and loss felt by his family, his friends and the whole community.

[25]There were also up-to-date victim personal statements, written now some 18 months after the collision, from two of the three injured passengers, Isobel Smith and Fin Hares.

[26]Isobel Smith said that the trauma of that day would haunt her for ever. It was still having a huge impact on her mentally, physically and financially. Simply getting into a car brought on anxiety and panic attacks. She had received counselling but still had recurring nightmares and flashbacks. She had been a second year university student at the time. Her examination grades suffered. Despite intensive physiotherapy for her knee and dislocated hip she was still frequently in pain. She had been unable to keep up the employment that provided much needed income to support herself as a student and it had been necessary to take out additional student loans.

[27]Fin Hares said that the trauma and memory of the accident would always remain with him. He continued to struggle daily with grief and loss. He had vivid recurring nightmares. His constant anxiety meant that he found it difficult to make even basic decisions. The physical impact of his injuries still persisted. There was a very high chance he would need a hip replacement and that he would develop arthritis in the next 5 years. He could not breathe properly through his nose which was badly broken. A further operation would probably be necessary. At the time of the accident he was still at school in his final year of sixth form hoping to go to university. His A level examinations started soon after the crash but the pain from his injuries meant that he could only sit some of his examination papers and in consequence his grades suffered. Because he was unfit for a long time to carry on with what was a fairly physical job, he lost a great deal of the income he had hoped to save towards growing university costs.

[28]There was no impact statement from Daniel Kettle whose injuries, as the judge noted, were the worst of all three of the surviving passengers.

[29]As well as ordering a pre-sentence report, the judge had also requested a liaison and diversion court report in view of the appellant's learning disability arising from a childhood diagnosis of Noonan’s syndrome. The appellant had attended mainstream high school but his mild learning disability had been supported by a special educational needs assessment.

[30]The pre-sentence report described the appellant as genuinely remorseful. When interviewed by the probation officer, the appellant agreed that he had been driving at an unacceptable speed although he said he could not recall being asked to slow down. The report queried whether this might be linked to a loss of memory of some aspects of the incident but the probation officer alternatively thought it credible to suggest (as it was put in the report) that the appellant was minimising this aspect of his behaviour as a form of self-preservation due to feelings of shame, remorse and awareness of the negative impact of his behaviour on his victims, their families and his own family. The appellant could recall overtaking another vehicle before the Fiesta went onto the grass verge and struck a tree. The report suggested that immaturity, impulsivity and the desire to fit in with others may have contributed to his poor decision making.

[31]The liaison and diversion report, prepared by a registered mental nurse, described the appellant as a vulnerable young adult with mild learning difficulties but there was no indication of any mental illness.

[32]The appellant had no previous convictions, cautions or reprimands.

[33]The appellant had written a letter himself to the judge expressing his remorse. There was also a bundle of no fewer than 37 character references from members of the appellant's family, from friends of the family, and from people who had worked with him or knew him socially. They all spoke of him in glowing terms as a kind, considerate, helpful and popular young man who had done well in overcoming his disability and who played a full part in family life and the life of his local community.

[34]In advance of the sentencing hearing, prosecution counsel and defence counsel each provided the judge with helpful Sentencing Notes. In her Note, Ms Debra White, on behalf of the appellant, submitted in particular that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the appellant should receive full credit of one-third for his guilty pleas even though a guilty plea at the PTPH would normally attract only 25 per cent credit. Ms White's argument was, and is still today, that although no indication of plea was given on the Better Case Management (BCM) form completed by the appellant's solicitor at the magistrates' court hearing on 25 June 2024, there was a good reason for this. The solicitor had endorsed the form:

"Defence cannot indicate a plea at this stage as they have only seen the IDPC [Initial Disclosure of Prosecution Case] and are missing information to allow them to take full and proper instructions."

[35]In her Sentencing Note, which was the extent of the relevant information placed before the judge, Ms White had said this:

"The matter was adjourned for Mr Wood to appear before Chester Crown Court on 23 July 2024. That hearing was moved administratively to 2 August 2024. On 23 July 2024 a conference took place with Mr Wood and defence counsel. At that stage the defence were not in possession of a playable version of exhibit MM/03. As a consequence a further conference took place on 26 June 2024."

We interpolate that exhibit MM/03 was the multi-media evidence presentation to which we had already referred. The Note continued:

"As a consequence a further conference took place on 26 July 2024. The Crown were notified of Mr Wood's intention to plead guilty on 29 July 2024 prior to the Pre-Trial Preparation Hearing [PTPH]. Mr Wood had a limited recollection of the events of 9 April 2023. It was vital that those that represent Mr Wood were able to view exhibit MM/03 prior to properly advising him. It is submitted that, in these circumstances, consideration ought to be given to affording more than the usual credit applied when a defendant pleads guilty at the PTPH, i.e. more than 25 % credit."

[36]Ms White relies upon the exception set out in section F1 of the relevant Sentencing Council guideline on Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, which provides:

"Where the sentencing court is satisfied that there were particular circumstances which significantly reduced the defendant’s ability to understand what was alleged or otherwise made it unreasonable to expect the defendant to indicate a guilty plea sooner than was done, a reduction of one-third should still be made. In considering whether this exception applies, sentencers should distinguish between cases in which it is necessary to receive advice and/or have sight of evidence in order to understand whether the defendant is in fact and law guilty of the offence(s) charged, and cases in which a defendant merely delays guilty plea(s) in order to assess the strength of the prosecution evidence and the prospects of conviction or acquittal."

[37]In the course of oral submissions Ms White confirmed that in addressing Judge Everett in mitigation, she had not developed any further the reasons set out in her Sentencing Note as to why exceptionally there should be full credit for the guilty pleas, rather than the 25% appropriate for guilty pleas at the PTPH. The judge's sentencing remarks

[38]In his sentencing remarks

the judge said:

"Four people were physically affected by what you did on 9th April, but the effect of what you did extended so far beyond that. So many people’s lives have been totally ruined by what was, on that particular occasion, a selfish disregard for anyone’s safety in your driving. You drove on what is not the easiest of roads far too fast... People in the car told you to slow down. You were holding a vape in your hand, so driving effectively one-handed at ridiculously high speeds: 90 miles an hour at some stage. Certainly, if not at that stage of the crash, far too fast. And that is why the crash occurred, because you could not control that vehicle."

The judge said that it would offend the principles of justice if he were not to send the appellant to prison for a considerable period of time. He said it was also important to pass such a significant sentence not only to punish the appellant but to deter other young people who attempted to drive like this, and to make them think twice about the prospect of going to prison for a long time.

[39]In relation to the level of credit for his guilty pleas

the judge said:

"I have listened with great care to Ms White’s eloquent submissions on your behalf and to whether or not I could give you more than 25 per cent credit, which is the credit which is attracted following a guilty plea at the plea and trial preparation hearing. I have given some thought to that. You had a considerable period of time between the date of this crash and your appearance in the magistrates’ court. I have no doubt that you will know what your driving was, and so you should have indicated the guilty plea in the magistrates’ court. You would have got one third credit... And so despite those eloquent submissions, in my judgment, one quarter credit is what you should receive."

[40]The judge referred to the appellant's young age, just 20 at the time of the collision and 21 at the date of sentence, and the guidance from this court on the approach to sentencing young people in the case of R v ZA

[2023] EWCA Crim 596

. Applying the Sentencing Council guideline for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the judge found that this plainly fell firmly into high culpability, level A. The judge said he had no doubt that the appellant was doing his best to catch up with the driver ahead of him. The appellant was showing off and driving far too fast. There was prolonged use of an electronic device. The judge said he found it quite astonishing that the appellant had been driving effectively with two fingers on the steering wheel, holding a vape at the same time in the other hand. There was a persistent disregard of the warnings of others.

[41]The guideline sentencing range for a category A offence of causing death by dangerous driving is 8 to 18 years' custody, with a starting point of 12 years. The judge considered the aggravating factor of the three offences of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The judge was satisfied that this feature on its own took the provisional sentence to the top of the bracket, 18 years.

[42]The judge then considered the features of mitigation. First, the appellant's lack of previous convictions and his good character, attested to by the bundle of references. Second, the appellant's young age at the time of the offence. Third, the mental health issues arising from growing up with Noonan’s syndrome. Fourth, the appellant's genuine remorse. All these features, the judge said, led him to reduce the provisional sentence of 18 years after trial to 14 years. After 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea the sentence on count 1 would therefore be 10½ years' imprisonment.

[43]In respect of each of the counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving there would be concurrent sentences of 3 years' imprisonment. The judge imposed a mandatory disqualification of 5 years which he extended by 7 years to 12 years so that it would commence on the appellant's release from prison. Counsel's submissions

[44]On behalf of the appellant Ms White submits, first, that the judge should have allowed full credit of one-third for the guilty pleas. She has developed in some detail the submissions which were made in short form in the Note she provided for the sentencing hearing. We are grateful to Ms White also for taking further instructions during the course of the hearing over the short adjournment in order to answer questions the Court put to her, and similarly to Ms Ember-Jade Wong on behalf of the prosecution, as to the sequence of events leading up to the magistrates’ court hearing and thereafter leading up to the entering of the guilty pleas at the Crown Court.

[45]Ms White explains that the appellant had a limited recollection of the events of 9 April, and maintains the submission she made to Judge Everett that it was therefore vital that he and those representing him were able to view the multi-media evidence presentation in order to be able to advise him properly. As we have already indicated that presentation shows CCTV footage from roadside cameras with only fleeting glimpses of the vehicles being driven past the camera.

[46]Ms White explains, as set out in her Sentencing Note, that she had a conference with the appellant on Tuesday 23 July, but as the multi-media presentation had not at that stage been served by the prosecution a further conference was arranged for Friday 26 July, by which time it had been served. At the conference on 26 July the decision was made that the appellant would plead guilty to all four counts. The appellant's unequivocal intention to plead guilty was conveyed to the prosecution on Monday 29 July, several days in advance of the PTPH set for Friday 2 August.

[47]Ms White submits that in these circumstances it would have been unreasonable to expect the appellant to indicate guilty pleas at the magistrates' court, before he or those advising him had seen the multi-media presentation. Without going into all the detail of the chronology which emerged following the Court’s questions, which Ms White and Ms Wong helpfully provided in their oral submissions, what it comes to is this. There had been a late change of solicitors. Those instructing Ms White took over the case from a previous firm and the access of the new firm to the disclosure material referred to in the Better Case Management form was not achieved until the morning of the magistrates' court hearing. It had been uploaded to the Common Platform system on 18 June but because the previous solicitors were still “logged into” that system (if we can put it that way) it was not until 25 June that the electronic version of the material in question was available to the new solicitors. It ran to some 115 pages. The issue of the availability of that material was discussed, it would seem, between the defence solicitor and the Crown Prosecution Service advocate at the magistrates’ court hearing on 25 June.

[48]It is in these circumstances that Ms White submits that special circumstances justified an exceptional course. She repeated in her oral submissions what she had said in her Sentencing Note, that the appellant’s recollection of events was unclear, whilst acknowledging that it was very important that an indication of a guilty plea was given at the earliest stage, hence the action taken after the magistrates' court hearing.

[49]In support of her submissions, Ms White relies on the guidance given by this court in R vPlaku

[2021] EWCA Crim 568

;

[2022] 1 Cr App R(S) 7

. The purpose of the Sentencing Council guideline is to encourage those who are going to plead guilty to do so as early in the court proceedings as possible. Ms White submits that this is exactly what the appellant did. She relies in particular on the following observations by Holroyde LJ, giving the judgment of the court, at [27]:

"Bearing in mind the infinite variety of situations which come before the courts, and the consequent undesirability of ever saying “never”, we are prepared to accept that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a court might be persuaded that an unequivocal guilty plea notified to the prosecution and to the court very shortly after the first court appearance should be treated as tantamount to a plea at the first stage of proceedings and should receive full, or almost full, credit. But such circumstances will be rare."

Ms White submits that this is one of those rare cases.

[50]Second, Ms White submits that the judge should have made a greater downward adjustment from his provisional sentence of 18 years to reflect the following guideline factors reducing seriousness, and personal mitigation, which were present in the case, namely:(i) the absence of previous convictions;

(ii) the appellant’s good driving record with no endorsements;

(iii) his genuine remorse;

(iv) his age and/or lack of maturity;

(v) the fact the deceased was a close friend of his;

(vi) the efforts the appellant made to assist and seek assistance by remaining at the scene;

(vii) the appellant's mild learning disability as a result of Noonan’s syndrome

(viii) the assessment in the pre-sentence report that he presented a low risk of general offending and a very low likelihood of serious offending.

[51]In the respondent's notice and in her oral submissions Ms Wong submits, on behalf of the Crown, that the judge carefully considered the question of credit for plea and it was open to him to conclude that the appellant could and should have indicated a guilty plea at the magistrates' court. She submits that the multi-media presentation by which Ms White has set great store was never going to assist on the fundamental issue of whether the appellant was driving at excessive speed, ignoring repeated warnings to slow down. At most, the multi-media presentation enabled the appellant to put forward the basis of plea subsequently tendered and accepted but it did not assist on the fundamental issue of whether the appellant had been driving dangerously.

[52]As for the complaint that the judge allowed an insufficient reduction for mitigating features, Miss Wong submits that the judge gave careful consideration to all those factors and the reduction of 4 years to reflect the mitigating factors was sufficient. Discussion and conclusion

[53]We have considered all these submissions very carefully and we are extremely grateful to both counsel for their focused submissions.

[54]In relation to the question of credit for plea, we note that the judge clearly attached considerable importance to and based his decision on the fact that after this fatal accident 14 months had elapsed before the first hearing in the magistrates' court, during which time there had been ample time for the appellant to reflect on his driving. As the judge put it: "I have no doubt that you will know what your driving was…".

[55]We think the judge was entitled and correct to regard this as a very important factor. The judge was not provided with the detailed information about the precise sequence of events that we have been, but that does not take away from the force of the fundamental point which the judge considered to be decisive, namely that there had been ample opportunity for the appellant to recall his driving. The circumstances of the crash itself, the damage to the vehicle and its consequences were sufficient to enable the appellant to realise and acknowledge that what he had done amounted to dangerous driving, with the benefit of any necessary legal advice as to what amounts to dangerous driving as a matter of law.

[56]We note the observation in the pre-sentence report that although there was some suggestion that the appellant had a lack of memory for the events in question, it may also have been the case that the appellant was not wanting to acknowledge what he knew to have been wholly dangerous driving on his part. There was no medical evidence to support any suggestion of amnesia, and we cannot see that his mild learning disability would have affected his ability to understand and know what he had done. He knew what he had done.

[57]Applying paragraph F1 of the guideline, like the judge, we do not accept that this was a case in which it was necessary to have received advice and have sight of evidence (here specifically the multi-media presentation) in order to understand whether the appellant was, in fact and law, guilty of the offence charged. In our judgment, and on careful examination, we are satisfied that there was no error of principle in the judge's conclusion. It was a conclusion that was open to him on the material before him including the submissions, at that stage, made by Ms White. It was a conclusion that he was fully entitled to reach. We are satisfied that the appropriate level of credit was 25 per cent.

[58]Turning to the length of the sentence, we note there has been no challenge to the judge's assessment that a provisional sentence of 18 years was appropriate to reflect the grossly aggravating factor of serious injury caused to the three other passengers. As a matter of law those sentences had to be concurrent because they all arose from one and the same piece of dangerous driving but the seriousness of the injuries caused to three other passengers, as well as causing the death of Felix Davies, meant that a very substantial uplift was called for within the guidelines. We observe that, standing alone, each of those offences would have merited a sentence of at least 4 years before credit for plea.

[59]The only remaining question therefore is whether the judge made a sufficient reduction for the factors reducing seriousness and reflecting personal mitigation as set out in the guidelines. It is plain to us from the judge's sentencing remarks that he had in mind all the factors relied upon, even if he did not articulate each of them individually in the precise terms of the guideline. For example, the judge was well aware that the appellant had made efforts to assist or seek assistance for the injured passengers, that he had a clean driving record, and that he and the deceased were close friends. The judge did not mention these specifically in his sentencing remarks but he had just listened to Ms White’s plea in mitigation, no doubt emphasising all relevant matters, and would have had them well in mind. They were apparent anyway from the bundle of references and from the pre-sentence report.

[60]The judge made a reduction of 4 years to reflect all the mitigating factors in this case. We think that was quite sufficient in all the circumstances. We are satisfied that the judge gave appropriate weight to all the mitigating factors.

[61]For all these reasons, and despite Ms White's powerful and tenacious submissions, we are not persuaded that this sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk