Aberdeen ‘bouley basher’ loses appeal against uplifted driving ban after dangerous driving at car meet

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] SAC (Crim) 8
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar

Bradley Young, who was convicted of dangerous driving in and around the Queen’s Links leisure park, argued that the period of disqualification, which was uplifted by 30 months to account for his imprisonment, was excessive.

The appeal was heard by Sheriffs Principal Aisha Anwar and Sean Murphy. LK Kenny, solicitor, appeared for the appellant and E Cameron, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Erode the impact

At a continued pleading diet in May 2023, the appellant pled guilty to an offence involving reversing his car and then accelerating forward while people held on to the outside of the car. When he tendered his plea, the appellant was serving a custodial sentence for a prior offence. He had also been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a separate offence.

Recognising that sentencing options were limited due to the appellant’s status, the sheriff imposed a fine of £900, reduced to £600 for the guilty plea, with an alternate of 14 days’ imprisonment concurrent to the sentence he was already serving. Noting he was expected to be released from prison in December 2025, the 16-month driving ban was uplifted by 30 months.

On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the headline disqualification period of two years was too high and ought to have been lower taking account of the appellant’s age, 22 at the time of the offence. Alternatively, the period of disqualification ought to begin at the point he was actually released from custody, so that he could start serving his disqualification period if he were released early.

The advocate depute submitted that the sheriff’s approach was correct, as the purpose of sections 35C and D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was to prevent an offender using the time spent in prison to erode the impact of a disqualification. Should the appellant be released early, it was open to him to make an application to the court for the removal of the disqualification period.

Deliberate and repeated

Sheriff Principal Anwar, delivering the opinion of the court, said of the headline sentence: “The sheriff considered that the appellant had engaged in a serious course of dangerous driving at a ‘car meet’. He had exposed himself, those holding on to his vehicle and members of the public to danger. The locus was a popular beachfront in Aberdeen. The sheriff noted that the area was known to attract young drivers, with some engaging in antisocial driving. The appellant undertook dangerous manoeuvres in close proximity to pedestrians. The manner of his driving had been deliberate and repeated and he had posted video footage of his manoeuvres on social media.”

She continued: “The court is required to have regard to the diminished effect of disqualification as a distinct punishment if the person who is disqualified is currently serving a custodial sentence. It would be illogical for the court to have regard to the diminished effect in the selection of an additional period of disqualification and then diminish the effect of that disqualification further by applying a discount to the period selected.”

Addressing when the disqualification period should start, the Sheriff Principal said: “With regard to the remaining ground of appeal, namely that the date of the disqualification should run from some date in the future when the appellant is in fact liberated, the appellant has not referred us to any authority to support such a proposition. The RTOA does not provide a mechanism for a delay in the commencement of a period of disqualification in such circumstances.”

She concluded: “We are not satisfied that such a proposition is workable in practice; at a sentencing diet, the court cannot know whether an offender will be released early and if so, when. We agree with the sheriff that the appellant’s remedy lies in an application to the court under section 42(1) of the 1988 Act, after 2 years of the disqualification period have passed.”

The appeal against sentence was therefore refused.