Deliberate Excessive Speed and Category A Sentencing: New Guideline Application in Akbar v R [2025] EWCA Crim 461

Introduction

Akbar v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 461) is a Court of Appeal decision addressing how the revised sentencing guideline for causing death by dangerous driving (effective 1 July 2023) should be applied, particularly in cases of grossly excessive speed. The appellant, Mr Zia Akbar, pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving. He had been sentenced to 8 years 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent on each count and disqualified from driving for an extended period. The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient, while Mr Akbar cross-appealed claiming manifest excess. The key issues were (i) appropriate categorisation under the new guideline, (ii) the effect of a Newton hearing on reduction for plea, and (iii) the scope of appellate intervention in sentencing margins.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the unduly lenient reference by the Attorney General and Mr Akbar’s appeal. The judges upheld:

The trial judge’s classification of each offence as Category A, based on conscious acceleration to 100 mph in a 50 mph zone under conditions where oncoming traffic might appear.
The starting point and range set under the new guideline—12 years starting point reduced to a notional 10 years for one death, uplifted to “close to the statutory maximum” to reflect two deaths.
The downward adjustment of 15% for guilty plea, despite adverse Newton findings, as within the judge’s discretionary range.
No error of principle or undue leniency that warranted interference.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referred to established authorities on sentencing appeals:

R v Dalton; guidance on when appellate courts may interfere with a discretionary sentence.
R v Newton; procedure for resolving factual disputes at sentencing and its impact on plea reduction.
R v Zaman; principles for totality and concurrent sentences where multiple deaths arise from a single incident.
R v Ceyssens; approach to personal mitigation and mental health in sentencing.

These precedents collectively shaped the Court of Appeal’s hands-off approach when the trial judge had applied the correct guideline, made rational factual findings at the Newton hearing, and stayed within the statutory range.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three stages:

Categorisation under the 2023 Guideline: The trial judge characterised deliberate acceleration to twice the speed limit as a conscious decision to ignore road rules and a “grossly excessive” risk. The Court of Appeal held this a correct application of step 2 of the guideline: excessive speed of such magnitude and in those conditions is a hallmark of Category A offending.
Newton Hearing and Plea Reduction: A Newton hearing had resolved disputed factual issues—when braking began and whether the Salt vehicle had paused. These findings reduced Mr Akbar’s credit for plea from the full 20% to 15%. The appellate court found no breach of principle: the judge had discretion to adjust within guideline parameters and was not obliged to adopt the guideline’s default halving (10%) absent more explicit error.
Margin of Appellate Intervention: On an unduly lenient reference, the court recognised a “marginal” difference of a few months but reiterated that interference is confined to cases where the sentence lies outside the reasonable range. Here the sentence—between 9 and 14 years before mitigation and plea—fell within acceptable limits.

Impact

Akbar v R clarifies several points for future sentencing:

Deliberate gross speeding may alone justify Category A classification.
Trial judges retain broad discretion in adjusting guideline starting points where aggravating and mitigating factors interplay—especially mental health burdens and multiple fatalities.
Reduction for plea after a Newton hearing remains fact-sensitive; no automatic halving rule applies if the judge gives reasoned adjustments.
Appellate courts will defer to a sentencing judge’s informed, guideline-compliant exercise of discretion unless clear error places the sentence outside the reasonable range.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Category A Offence: The highest tier in the dangerous driving guideline, reserved for the most serious cases—e.g., very high speeds, multiple deaths, impaired driving, or extreme manoeuvres.
Newton Hearing: A mini-trial at sentencing where disputed facts in a defendant’s plea basis are resolved. Findings adverse to the defendant reduce the credit for plea.
Plea Credit: A discount on sentence awarded to a defendant who pleads guilty—up to 20% under the guidelines—diminished if a Newton hearing shows parts of the plea basis were untrue.
Totality Principle: Ensures that when multiple sentences run concurrently, the overall sentence fairly reflects the aggregate criminality without undue cumulation.

Conclusion

Akbar v R [2025] EWCA Crim 461 cements the principle that deliberately driving at grossly excessive speed under foreseeable risk conditions merits Category A sentencing. It also affirms the trial judge’s latitude in calibrating reductions for personal mitigation and plea credit after Newton hearings. Finally, the decision underscores appellate restraint: a sentence within the broad guideline range, rationally explained and compliant with statutory maxima, will not be disturbed as unduly lenient or manifestly excessive.