A written charge was “issued” under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.29(1) when the document comprising it was completed with all relevant details, in the form required for service. Issuing was a discrete step from serving the charge on the accused person. If the charge was issued within six months of the offence, it was issued in time under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.127(1) even if it had not yet been served.
Where an offender who had completed the detention and training period of a detention and training order committed a further offence while still subject to a period of supervision, the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.106 required a sentence of detention in a young offender institution to be imposed with immediate effect. Such a sentence could not be made consecutive to any detention period imposed for breach of the DTO.
A judge had erred in concluding that alcohol, which was the culpable cause of an offender’s dangerous driving, and a record of dangerous driving 20 years earlier, together required the offender to be sentenced within a higher culpability category. Judges had to be careful not to double-count against an offender by treating the sole cause of the accident as an aggravating factor of itself. He should have been sentenced within the intermediate category, and the appropriate term was 27 months’ imprisonment.
Consecutive sentences for dangerous driving, driving while having consumed drugs and driving while disqualified were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences, having regard to the principle of totality and the sentencing judge’s failure to follow the guidance in R. v Needham (Paul Maurice)  EWCA Crim 455. A five-year disqualification from driving with the requirement for an extended re-test was upheld.
A sentence of four years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender following his plea of guilty to causing the death of an elderly pedestrian by driving a heavy goods vehicle dangerously whilst using a mobile phone was reduced on appeal to three years four months.