Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Crim 1982
Case No: 200904117/A5 
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 
 
Date: Thursday, 17th September 2009
 
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

MR JUSTICE SILBER 
 
MR JUSTICE BURNETT 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

v 

MATTHEW JOHN BLYTHE 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr O Saxby appeared on behalf of the Appellant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE SILBER:  Matthew Blyth appeals with leave of the single judge against sentences totalling 12 months' imprisonment, which have been imposed upon him at the Crown Court at Canterbury on 27th July 2009. The appellant had earlier pleaded guilty to counts of common assault and on rearraignment to an offence of dangerous driving.  He received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for the dangerous driving and 4 months' imprisonment concurrent for the common assault.
2.	The appeal relates to an offence which occurred on 30th October 2000 and when a parking warden, Mr Dean Altridge, was on duty in uniform in Dover.  The time came when a Subaru motorcar owned by the appellant was parked in an area where loading was not permitted.  Mr Altridge noted there was nobody in it and then started to issue a penalty notice when the appellant arrived carrying some carrier bags shouting that he was going.
3.	The appellant then got into his car and reversed back several feet before winding down the window and asking Mr Altridge if he was going to give him a parking ticket.  At that time Mr Altridge was taking a picture of the car and he replied in the affirmative whereupon he printed off the ticket and handed it to the appellant who had been argumentative.  The appellant put the steering full lock to the right and the car lurched towards Mr Altridge who had to quickly step out of the way to avoid being hit.  Mr Altridge moved to the rear of the car and again moved quickly out of the way as the appellant reversed towards him.  Indeed Mr Altridge reached a point where there was a metal pollard between him and the car.  At this point, the appellant got out of the car and approached Mr Altridge saying "shall we take this round the corner".  The appellant put his hands on Mr Altridge shoulders and pushed him hard enough that Mr Altridge had to take a step back.  A bystander shouted there was closed circuit television at which point the appellant got back into his car and drove off.  
4.	There was a basis of plea put forward and the appellant accepted his guilt to dangerous driving but he did so on the basis "that he reversed in the heat of the moment, over a short distance towards in the direction of the traffic warden thereby exposing him to the risk of injury."  The basis of plea stated "at no stage did he drive deliberately at a traffic warden nor was it his intention to cause the traffic warden any harm or injury".
5.	There was an impact statement from Mr Altridge, who explained he was so upset by what had happened that it affected his sleeping.  He was also signed off work for a period of four weeks but he subsequently returned to work with the benefit of counselling.
6.	The appellant is now aged 36 years of age.  He has 12 convictions for 21 offences and he served a number of  custodial sentences mainly for drug offences.
7.	In January 2003 he received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
8.	The pre‑sentence report noted that the appellant attributed his behaviour to his agitated state and his own stupidity in parking illegally and what he perceived as overzealous officiousness.  The judge in sentencing the appellant explained that the car had been used as a weapon.
9.	The basis of the plea is that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the judge went behind the basis of plea which had not been challenged by the prosecution.
10.	We have no doubt that a custodial sentence in this case was totally justified.  Car parking attendants perform a useful function and also the nature of their work means they are subject to regular abuse and vilification.  Set against that background, there is a need to give them protection and to give sentences which deter people from behaving in an aggressive way towards them.
11.	The behaviour of the appellant in this case, the public case, merits custodial sentence.  But the issue then is whether or not the sentence was too long.  In the advice accompanying the notice of appeal counsel referred first to the decision of this court in R v Fabian Robert Joseph [2001] EWCA Crim 1195, in which a motorist who dissatisfied that at receiving a parking ticket got into his vehicle and turned his vehicle towards the parking attendant and drove at him.  In consequence the attendant slid onto the bonnet of the vehicle and carrying 150 yards down the road before he got off the vehicle and the appellant drove off.  The attendant received a cut finger and some pain in his back.  He did not require hospital treatment.  An independent witness had seen the vehicle driven by the appellant with the traffic warden on the bonnet and he noted that the appellant's car was weaving and appeared to be accelerating at the same time.  The appellant in that case was convicted after pleading not guilty.  He was a man of previous good character, whose business had gone into bankruptcy.  The sentence was reduced by this court from 15 months' imprisonment to 10 months' imprisonment.
12.	Another case relied on by the appellant's counsel is R v Watson [2007] EWCA Crim 1595, in which a parking attendant had issued a ticket when the driver returned to the car and chased the traffic warden up the road and threw a stone at him.  The driver threatened to "burst his arse" and he said that if he saw the parking warden again he would run him over.  When the traffic warden went down the street and started to make some notes, the driver got into his car and executed a three‑point turn.  He then drove deliberately at the attendant.  The driving of the appellant in that case was described as being very aggressive, with the driver speeding up the car and deliberately swerving towards the parking warden who was forced to jump out of the way.  There was another incident a few minutes later when the car returned and drove towards the traffic warden, but he was not hit.  The appellant pleaded not guilty but after conviction he was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.  On appeal this court reduced his sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.  
13.	Of course neither of those cases are guideline cases and each case depends on their particular facts.  We do note that in this case, as compared with the other cases, the appellant had a bad record but, on the other hand, the degree of  violence shown by him was far less.  We also consider that the judge went behind the basis of plea in finding that the car had been used as a form of weapon.
14.	In our view, the appropriate sentence in this case would have been 12 months' imprisonment but, after applying the conventional discount for an early plea, the appropriate sentence should be 8 months' imprisonment.  To that extent we reduce the sentence of dangerous driving to 8 months' imprisonment.  The overall sentence therefore becomes 8 months' imprisonment.  To that extent this appeal is allowed.