Liberty Mitchell sentence increased after fatal crash
According to the Attorney General’s Office, Liberty Mitchell, 21, from Chipping Norton, has had her prison sentence increased after a crash that killed two people and injured six others. On 28 July 2026, the Court of Appeal raised her term from six years and eight months to nine years and three months. When court stories are reduced to one headline, it is easy to miss what is really being decided. This case is about more than speed. It is about choices behind the wheel, the way sentencing can be reviewed, and the fact that insurance rules can matter more than many drivers realise.
The court heard that on 2 December 2022 Mitchell was driving towards Aldsworth in Gloucestershire when she tried to overtake three vehicles on the wrong side of the road at nearly 100mph in a 60mph zone. She then collided with one of the vehicles she was attempting to pass, a taxi, causing a pile-up involving several cars. Taxi driver Octavian Codreanu died at the scene. His passenger, history teacher Moyra Whelan, suffered life-threatening injuries and later died at Southmead Hospital. Six other people were hurt, and three of them were seriously injured.
This matters because dangerous driving is not just a broad label used after any serious collision. In plain English, courts use it for driving that falls far below the standard expected of a careful driver and creates an obvious risk of serious harm. Nearly 100mph, a high-speed overtake, and the wrong side of the road together make that risk clear. The government release also says police found videos on Mitchell’s social media showing her filming herself while driving dangerously on earlier occasions. One showed her speeding at 100mph and another showed her moving into oncoming traffic. That detail helped show a pattern of risk-taking, not one isolated lapse.
On 18 December 2025, Gloucester Crown Court sentenced Mitchell after she pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving, two counts of causing death whilst uninsured, and three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. She was also disqualified from driving for eight years and four months, and she must pass an extended driving test before she can get her licence back. **What this means:** a driving ban does not simply expire and vanish. In some serious cases, the court requires extra proof that a person is safe to return to the road. That part of the sentence is about public protection as much as punishment.
The increase came after Attorney General Ellie Reeves KC MP referred the case to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. That scheme allows some serious cases to be looked at again if the original sentence appears too low when set against the facts. This is worth slowing down for. An appeal like this is not about replaying the collision or reopening the guilty pleas. It is about whether the punishment properly matches the seriousness of what the court has already accepted. In Mitchell’s case, the appeal judges decided it did not, and they added two years and seven months.
Another part of the case can sound technical, but it is actually very practical. The Attorney General’s Office said Mitchell was a self-employed domestic cleaner and was driving between jobs when the collision happened. Her motor insurance policy did not cover business use. **Why the insurance point matters:** many people assume fully comprehensive insurance means they are covered for every kind of driving. That is not always true. If you use a car as part of paid work, even travelling from one job to another, the policy wording may be different from ordinary social use or a regular commute. In this case, that gap in cover led to two further counts linked to the deaths.
There is also a media literacy lesson here. The police investigation uncovered videos that Mitchell had posted herself. What is uploaded for attention or approval can later become evidence about judgement, risk and behaviour over time. Online bravado does not stay online when real people are harmed. For younger readers especially, that point is hard but important. A phone in the car is not harmless background noise. It can record the very choices a court later has to examine.
Ellie Reeves said her deepest sympathies were with the loved ones of Octavian Codreanu and Moyra Whelan, and with everyone injured in the crash. That is the human centre of the story. Before it became a legal case about offences, sentencing and appeals, it was a collision that tore through families, work, health and everyday life. If you want the clearest lesson from this case, it is this: road crime is not an abstract topic reserved for lawyers. Speed, overtaking, filming while driving, and assuming insurance cover is enough are all choices made by ordinary people. The consequences, as this case shows, can be permanent.