SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Lord Braid made the following comments in court:

"At around 1pm on 13 April 2026, John Bell, known to his family and friends as Jack, aged 74, was working in his garden, a space where he was entitled to feel safe, performing a maintenance task for a neighbour as an act of kindness, as he was wont to do.  His wife was elsewhere in the garden, talking to a neighbour.  Mr Bell was in good health and looking forward to many active years ahead of him.  He and his wife were already making plans for celebrating their diamond wedding anniversary in two years’ time.

Tragically, that picture of domestic happiness and normality was about to be shattered, forever, by you.  At that same time, despite the fact that you had been placed on bail at Dundee Sheriff Court less than a week previously for multiple offences of dishonesty, you entered a garage forecourt in Broughty Ferry and stole a high-value high-performance car, which you drove away despite the fact that not only have you never held a driving licence, you were subject to three disqualifications from driving, two of them for life.

Although you drove a distance of just under half a mile, you did so in a residential area with a 30mph speed limit, numerous warning signs urging caution, pedestrian footpaths on either side of the road, and numerous entrances to private dwelling houses. Despite these obvious dangers, from the moment you drove away from the garage you demonstrated a wicked disregard for the lives of others.  You overtook other vehicles, straddled the centre line and forced your way between oncoming traffic and vehicles ahead.  You drove through a red traffic light, and then drove on the wrong side of the road, requiring at least one oncoming vehicle to take evasive action.  As you approached the Bells’ house on a left-hand bend, you accelerated to a staggering speed of 85 mph.  Unsurprisingly, you failed to negotiate the bend but lost control of the vehicle, which left the road, clipped the kerb, struck a traffic island and crashed into the garden of the Bells’ house, striking Jack Bell and trapping him between the car and the outside wall of the house.  Mr Bell sustained non-survivable injuries and was pronounced dead a short time later.  To add to the tragedy of the incident, Mrs Bell, who had witnessed the car crash into her garden, came round the side of the house to check on her husband; one can scarcely imagine her feelings of horror and grief when she saw what had happened.  Instead of expressing remorse or even finding out whether you could offer any assistance to Mr Bell, you attempted to flee the scene but were kept there by passers-by until police arrived.   A roadside test revealed that you had consumed cocaine.  You were taken to hospital but your offending that day was not over, as you subsequently failed to provide a specimen of blood which was required by police. 

Mr Bell’s wife and some of his children and grandchildren have provided victim statements, in which they speak movingly and eloquently of the grief and pain which they have suffered as a result not only of Mr Bell’s death but the manner of it; of a void which can never be filled; of the fact that whereas you will today receive a sentence from which you will one day eventually be released, they will have to endure a life sentence of pain from which they will never truly recover.  You not only stole a car on 13 April 2026; you stole a kind, loving and much-loved man from his wife, his two sons and one daughter; his 10 adult grandchildren; and his nine great grandchildren. 

You have an atrocious record, having accrued more than 90 convictions over the past 38 years, encompassing approximately twice that number of offences.  Of significance for present purposes: you have committed 11 offences of theft of a motor vehicle; an eye-watering 150 other offences of dishonesty, mainly but not exclusively theft by shoplifting.  Some 64 of your convictions involved a breach of bail.  You have committed the offence of driving while disqualified on no fewer than 10 occasions.  I was told by the Crown that you have three previous convictions of dangerous driving, but on perusing your record, that does not tell the whole story.  Although it is correct that you only have three previous convictions for contravening section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, one of those convictions includes three separate contraventions of that section.  In addition, in a case at Carlisle Crown Court in 2003, which appears to bear several hallmarks of the present case, you were convicted of the English offence of aggravated vehicle taking, contrary to section 12 of the Theft Act 1968, the aggravation being dangerous driving.  In short, you have been held by the courts to have driven dangerously on no fewer than six previous occasions.   You have received countless custodial sentences, mostly short-term ones, certainly none approaching the length of the sentence you are about to receive.

The Justice Social Work Report makes for depressing and concerning reading.  It is not unfair to say that you did not have the best start in life, which perhaps explains, although it does not excuse, why your life subsequently spiralled out of control in the way it has.  You are assessed as posing a very high risk of reoffending.  The author of the report suggests that for the protection of the public an extended sentence ought to be imposed. However, that would not be a competent sentence for these offences.  The report also states that it is unclear whether the fact that, to date, you have shown no real desire to take advantage of opportunities presented to you to address your many issues, or to change your offending, is down to defiance or inability.   On either view – whether it is defiance or inability – you clearly represent a significant risk to the public of further offending, and, as this case shows, of causing harm, and the sentence imposed will require to reflect that. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to enable me to pass sentence today.

You fall to be sentenced on five charges.  The most serious is charge 2, that of causing the death of Mr Bell by dangerous driving in the manner I have described, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.  Charge 3 is a charge of causing his death whilst driving while uninsured, contrary to section 3ZB of the 1988 Act.  Charge 4 is a charge of causing his death whilst driving while disqualified, contrary to section 3ZC of the 1988 Act.  Those charges obviously all overlap, but charges 3 and 4 fall to be regarded as aggravations of charge 2 and will result in a higher sentence than I would otherwise have imposed.  Charge 1 is a charge of theft of a motor vehicle.  Charge 5 is a charge of failing to provide a specimen of blood which was required to ascertain the proportion of drugs in your blood at the time you were driving, contrary to section 7(6) of the 1988 Act.

It is often said, because it is true, that no sentence this court can pass can possibly hope to make up for the loss which Mr Bell’s family and friends have suffered.  However, guidance as to the appropriate sentence to pass in this case is available from the Scottish Sentencing Council.  Two of the Council’s guidelines are in point.  The first is the guideline on the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing, which applies to the case as a whole; and the other, which applies to charges 2, 3 and 4, is the guideline on “Statutory Offences of causing death by driving.”    The former guideline requires the court to consider all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the impact on others, and your own circumstances.  The sentence passed must be no more severe than is necessary to achieve the appropriate purposes of sentencing, which in your case are, punishment; protection of the public – which in light of the Social Work Report is a significant purpose; and expression of society’s disapproval, some might say abhorrence, of the crimes you have committed.  The other side of that particular coin is, of course, that the sentence passed must also be severe enough to achieve those purposes.  I observe at this stage that your offending is of the utmost severity; the impact on others is immeasurable; and there is nothing about your circumstances which suggests that any leniency ought to be afforded you by the court.  That all points to the necessity of a severe sentence.

Turning for more specific guidance to the guideline for causing death by dangerous driving, it divides the seriousness of dangerous driving into three categories:

• Level A, which is described as including: “Prolonged and deliberate course of bad or aggressive driving with a disregard for the danger being caused to others”; and “gross impairment through the voluntary consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs”;
• Level B, which includes driving that created a very significant risk of danger to others; aggressive driving (for example, persistent tailgating); grossly excessive speed for the road and/or prevailing conditions and/or the particular vehicle being driven; and repeated disregard of road signals or signs (for example, traffic lights or a ‘Give Way’ sign); and
• Level C, examples of which are a single dangerous manoeuvre, excessive speed or momentarily being distracted.

Level C clearly does not apply here.  The choice is between Level A and Level B.  While your driving was not prolonged, in the sense that it lasted only a relatively short distance and time, it came to an end only because the very danger which you had created came to pass.  As I have already observed, from the moment you left the garage, you deliberately drove in a wickedly dangerous manner, showing no regard whatsoever for the danger being caused to others.  While it is impossible to say whether you were “grossly” impaired by drugs – Mrs Bell observed that you were dazed and glazed; police officers who attended were unable to say that – the precise quantity of drugs you had consumed cannot be assessed or even estimated due to your subsequent refusal to provide a blood sample.  Nonetheless, on any view you must have been impaired; and taking that factor into account along with the nature of your driving, I have no hesitation in placing your driving within Level A, the highest level of seriousness.  Put simply: if this case does not fall within level A, it is hard to conceive of one which would. 

The guideline range for Level A is 7 to 12 years custody.  I place your driving at the top end of the range.  Matters do not end there, however, because that is only a suggested range.  As the guideline itself makes clear, it is open to me to pass a sentence below or above the range, depending on whether there are any mitigating circumstances, or aggravating ones.

There are no mitigating circumstances relating to the offence.  However, I have identified five aggravating ones.  The first, perhaps the most significant, is your dreadful record, which includes directly analogous offending - driving dangerously - albeit you have not previously caused a death.  That in itself merits a significant loading to the sentence.  The second is that you were driving a stolen car.  The third is that Mr Bell was a vulnerable by-stander, in what should have been the sanctuary of his own garden.  The fourth is that you were at liberty only because you had been granted bail less than a week previously for offences of dishonesty, one condition of bail being that you did not commit any offences while on bail.  The fifth is that you were driving while disqualified, an offence which you have committed on 10 previous occasions, and without insurance, factors which are reflected in charges 3 and 4.  

None of those aggravating features have been taken into account in placing the case within Level A.  For that reason, I propose to go beyond the suggested range of the guideline and select a headline sentence, before discount, of 17 years and six months imprisonment, six months of that (the statutory maximum) being attributable to the bail aggravation.  While I acknowledge that is severe, I consider that it is proportionate having regard to the sentencing aims I have identified, including protection of the public.  This headline sentence takes into account that in my estimation, the theft of the car, which is an aggravating feature, merits a custodial sentence of three and a half years imprisonment, which on one view might be ordered to run consecutively.  As a check, a sentence of 17 years and six months is in line with that which might have been imposed in England and Wales, under the different guideline which applies there.  I also assess your culpability under that guideline as being the most serious – category A – leading to a range of 8 to 18 years, with a starting point of 12 years.  The same aggravating features I have identified would easily lead to the same sentence as I propose.

Dealing briefly with charges 3 and 4, the guideline for those suggests a range of anything from a community payback order to 2 years custody.  However, having regard to the aggravating features I have identified, I propose to impose, in each case, the statutory maximum sentence.  On charge 3 that is a concurrent headline sentence of 2 years imprisonment and on the more serious charge 4, a concurrent headline sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

Turning to charge 1, the theft of a car worth £40,000 which was destroyed, representing a loss of that sum to its owner, that is in itself a serious charge, particularly in light of your record.  On it, I propose a headline sentence of 3 years and 6 months, 6 months attributable to the bail aggravation.  Since I have taken this factor into account in determining the length of the sentence on charge 2, I will order it, too, to run concurrently with the sentence on that charge. 

Turning finally to charge 5, the appropriate headline sentence is 6 months imprisonment.  As that offence is separate and distinct from the others, I will order it to run consecutively to the other sentences being imposed today.  That gives a total headline sentence of 18 years imprisonment.

The law says that because you have pled guilty, you are entitled to a reduction in your sentence.   That is to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea.  Insofar as charges 1 to 4 are concerned, the appropriate reduction is one quarter. That results in a sentence of 13 years and 1 month’s imprisonment on charge 2, with concurrent sentences of 2 years and 8 months on charge 1; 1 year and 6 months on charge 3; and 7 years and 6 months on charge 4.  On charge 5, where the only witnesses would have been police officers, the appropriate reduction is 1 month, resulting in a consecutive sentence of 5 months imprisonment.  The total custodial sentence passed on you today is therefore one of 13 years and 6 months imprisonment.

I next have to decide when that sentence should run from.  You spent 17 days on remand for these offences before being sentenced to 7 months imprisonment at Dundee Sheriff Court on 1 May 2026, for the offences for which you had been on bail.  That custodial sentence interrupted your period of remand.  I am told that your notional earliest release date would have been 3 July 2026, 49 days ago, although I find it surprising, given your record and the risk you are said to pose, that you would have been considered suitable for early release, as that would have been. Nonetheless, it can safely be said that you have spent no more than 66 days on remand exclusively due to this case.   In those circumstances, I will order that today’s sentences, totalling 13 years and six months, should run from 66 days ago, in other words, 16 June 2026.  Perhaps the length of this sentence will incentivise you to undertake work within the prison estate, in a way which previous shorter sentences have seemingly been unable to do, with a view to reducing your risk by the time you are eventually eligible for parole.

Finally, I have to order a period of disqualification on charges 2, 3, 4 and 5.  Disqualification for life would be appropriate, but the legislation requires me to add on an extension period equal to half of your sentence, which becomes meaningless when life disqualification is ordered.  I will therefore make an order which has the same practical effect by disqualifying you from holding a driving licence for 50 years, to which the extension period will be added, giving a total period of disqualification of 56 years and 9 months. You will never be entitled to hold a driving licence, but for completeness, you would require to sit and pass the extended test of competence before you could competently be issued with one."

21 August 2026