Court of Appeal Increases Sentencing for Dangerous Driving to Reflect Updated Guidelines

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1537
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of R v Syed Minhaz Ahmed addresses the application of sentencing guidelines and the concept of an unduly lenient sentence in the context of causing death by dangerous driving. The procedural history and substantive application of guidelines, as well as principles concerning legitimate expectation and interests of justice, are considered to determine the appropriate sentence.

Key Facts

Syed Minhaz Ahmed was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, after initially pleading guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving. Ahmed was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for six years. The Solicitor General referred the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The case highlights Ahmed’s excessive speed at twice the speed limit which led to the collision with the cyclist Jayden Kristiansen, his failure to stop at the scene, and subsequent lack of immediate cooperation with police.

The appeal centered around the principles of sentencing guidelines, legitimate expectation, and the interests of justice. The key legal principles addressed include:

  1. Sentencing Guidelines: The court considered which sentencing guidelines were applicable—the Sentencing Council Guideline introduced on 1 July 2023 or the one from 2008. Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Code 2020 mandates that courts must follow relevant sentencing guidelines unless contrary to the interests of justice.

  2. Interests of Justice: The judge originally adopted the 2008 guidelines, believing it unjust to sentence Ahmed under the new guidelines as he was initially due to be sentenced prior to their introduction. The appeal challenged this approach as not reasonable or serving the interests of justice.

  3. Legitimate Expectation: The concept of ‘legitimate expectation’ from the relevant principles in Patel & Ors [2021] EWCA Crim 231 was discussed, indicating an offender cannot have a legitimate expectation to be sentenced by outdated guidelines.

  4. Unduly Lenient Sentence: The Lord Chief Justice in Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 1989 [1991] WLR 41 provided that a sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range that a judge could reasonably consider appropriate. This case required the application of this principle with the updated guidelines.

  5. Culpability and Sentencing: The case demonstrates how culpability and relevant factors outlined in guidelines influence the sentencing range and starting point.

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal deemed that the original judge’s approach was incorrect, and that the applicable sentencing guideline was the one introduced on 1 July 2023. Ahmed’s sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment was determined to be unduly lenient and was replaced by an 8-year sentence with a total disqualification period extended to 8 years. The application of the updated guideline and consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors shaped the outcome.

Conclusion

In R v Syed Minhaz Ahmed, the Court of Appeal established that sentencing must align with the applicable guidelines as of the date of sentencing, irrespective of previous guidelines or expectations. This case underscores the importance of judicial adherence to the rule of law and the Sentencing Council’s authority in guiding sentencing practices to reflect current legal and societal standards. The increase in Ahmed’s sentence reflects the gravity of the offense and the court’s commitment to applying updated guidelines in the pursuit of justice.