Mark John Golightly [2019] EWCA Crim 1000
- Summary
- Citing
- Cited By
R v Mark John Golightly [2019] EWCA Crim 1000 concerned an appeal against sentence imposed by the Crown Court following guilty pleas entered on the morning of trial on 30 August 2018. The Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Sharp DBE, Mr Justice William Davis and His Honour Judge Leonard QC sitting as a judge of the court) refused the renewed application for leave to appeal.
Mr Golightly was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving (count 1), 12 months’ imprisonment for having an offensive weapon (count 2), one month’s imprisonment for criminal damage (count 4) and two years’ imprisonment for possession of an imitation firearm (count 5). The sentences on counts 1, 2 and 5 were ordered to run consecutively, producing a total sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment.
The offending arose from two separate incidents involving Mr Golightly’s partner’s former partner, Mr Anthony Holland, against a background of a long history of allegations and confrontations between the two men. On 31 January 2018, after Mr Holland had taken a dog from the home Mr Golightly shared with his partner, Mr Golightly pursued Mr Holland’s van in his car and deliberately collided with the van a number of times. The chase ended when the van collided with two other cars. Mr Golightly then jumped from his car and smashed the van window with an axe before chasing Mr Holland, who ran for safety. Mr Golightly dropped the axe at an early stage of the chase. A further incident occurred on 19 February 2018, when Mr Golightly brandished what appeared to be a small black handgun at Mr Holland and his brother.
The sentencing judge acknowledged that responsibility for the incident was not Mr Golightly’s alone, given Mr Holland’s behaviour on the day and the history between them, but emphasised that this could not excuse Mr Golightly’s conduct because he could have broken off his pursuit at any stage. The judge applied the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline for dangerous driving and concluded the offending fell within category 1A, noting the pursuit took place over a considerable distance and time and resulted in collision and injury. The judge recognised that whilst the applicant’s previous convictions aggravated the offending, he had made significant strides towards rehabilitation. A ten per cent discount was applied for the late guilty plea.
Mr McNally, appearing for Mr Golightly, advanced three grounds of appeal. First, he submitted that the sentences on count 1 and possibly count 2 were too long. Second, he argued the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently because they formed part of the same incident. Third, he contended the sentencing judge should have made a discretionary downward adjustment to compensate for the fact that Mr Golightly was recalled in respect of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection passed in 2008, which resulted in none of the period on remand counting towards his sentence.
The Court of Appeal rejected the first and second grounds. The court held that the sentencing judge was justified in passing consecutive sentences to reflect separate aspects of the criminal behaviour: the first dealing with the dangerous driving that presented a danger to Mr Holland and other road users, and the second involving the use of an axe. The court found that whilst the overall sentence of two years and six months for the offending on 31 January might be considered severe, it could not reasonably be argued to be either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, even in conjunction with the sentence on count 5.
As to the third ground, Mr McNally accepted the general proposition that the court should pass a sentence appropriate for the offence before it and should not exercise a discretion to adjust the sentence to take account of periods on remand. However, he raised the potential unfairness to someone recalled on licence and provided an example where unfairness could result. The court considered R v Kerrigan [2014] EWCA Crim 2348 and R v Taylor [2011] EWCA Crim 2236, which established that a day on remand will count as time served in relation to one sentence only pursuant to section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The court rejected the submission as unarguable, holding that to compensate in a sentence for time on remand which did not count towards sentence, save in the most exceptional circumstances and to cure an injustice, would bypass the statutory intention of Parliament. The court found there were no exceptional circumstances in Mr Golightly’s case, where he had delayed his plea until the morning of trial. The court noted that the learned judge had said he was going to take account of the effects of how the indeterminate sentence operates in arriving at the overall sentence, but gave it little regard.
The court also clarified the period of disqualification. After initially imposing a minimum disqualification period of 12 months, the sentencing judge had been persuaded by the prosecution to increase this to two years on the basis that this was the minimum mandatory sentence. The court held that the prosecution was wrong and the judge’s initial instinct was correct. The court confirmed that the sentencing judge imposed a 12 month mandatory disqualification with a mandatory re-test together with an extension period of nine months pursuant to section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and an uplift of 18 months less two days under section 35B, running from the date of sentence.
In short, the Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal, finding the consecutive sentences justified, the overall sentence not manifestly excessive, and no exceptional circumstances warranting a discretionary reduction to compensate for time on remand not counting towards sentence.