Voysey v Whyatt

Voysey v Whyatt involved an appeal against a sentence for dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant, Voysey, had been convicted and sentenced to 12 months' immediate imprisonment and a two-year suspension of his motor driver's licence. Voysey sought leave to appeal the sentence, contending that it was excessive given the circumstances and that it included an inadmissible victim impact statement. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the inadmissible evidence influenced the sentence. The court had to determine if the sentence should be suspended, considering Voysey's lack of a significant prior record and the absence of permanent injury or disability to the victim.

The court's reasoning focused on the proportionality of the sentence, the role of deterrence, and the impact of inadmissible evidence on the sentencing decision. The court found that the sentence was indeed excessive, particularly because it did not consider the youth of the offender and the absence of lasting harm to the victim. The inadmissible evidence, which was not objected to at the time, did not significantly affect the sentence. However, the court was concerned about the sentence's impact on Voysey, a youthful offender with no significant prior record, and the potential for over-deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence should be suspended, given the mitigating factors and the need for proportionality in sentencing.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, resentencing Voysey. The imprisonment sentence was suspended, reflecting the court's view on the excessiveness of the original sentence and the need for proportionality. The court emphasised the importance of considering the offender's youth and the absence of permanent harm to the victim when determining an appropriate sentence. The final orders were that leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and Voysey's sentence of imprisonment was suspended.