Hull, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 195 (14 February 2024)

Hull, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 195 (14 February 2024)

The original sentence was unduly lenient because the judge failed to apply the correct starting point of 12 years for Category A culpability, did not make the required upward adjustment for multiple aggravating factors, and gave excessive weight to mitigation. The appropriate sentence, after proper consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors and credit for guilty plea, was nine years and three months' imprisonment.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 195
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Offender: Anton Hull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Appeal Against Sentence; Review of Sentence for Undue Leniency
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence increased
Legal Topics
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, Sentencing Guidelines, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Use of Mobile Phone While Driving, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
Criminal Law Causing Death by Dangerous Driving Sentencing Guidelines Unduly Lenient Sentences Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Use of Mobile Phone While Driving Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Anton Hull

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Appeal Against Sentence; Review of Sentence for Undue Leniency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentence of six years' imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Proper application of the Sentencing Council guideline for causing death by dangerous driving
  3. 3 Appropriate weight to aggravating and mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was unduly lenient because the judge failed to apply the correct starting point of 12 years for Category A culpability, did not make the required upward adjustment for multiple aggravating factors, and gave excessive weight to mitigation. The appropriate sentence, after proper consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors and credit for guilty plea, was nine years and three months' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence increased

Orders

  • Leave to refer sentence granted
  • Original sentence of six years' imprisonment quashed