Anwar, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, aged 23, was convicted on 21 January 2024 at the Crown Court in The City of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He was acquitted of attempted murder but had pleaded guilty earlier to dangerous driving. On 25 March 2024, the Defendant was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment for the grievous bodily harm offence and concurrently 18 months for dangerous driving, alongside a 39-month driving disqualification. The Solicitor General applied to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The incident occurred on 13 July 2023 in Rusholme, The City, where a 14-year-old youth ("A.") was injured after being run over by the Defendant’s car. CCTV footage showed the youth running along a pavement and then moving into the road, falling as the Defendant’s Audi car moved towards and over him. The Defendant drove off after the incident. The youth suffered serious injuries requiring intensive hospital treatment. The Defendant was traced via the car registration and arrested the following day, initially denying intent and claiming panic.

The Defendant had limited prior criminal history, was living with his mother, employed casually, and studying at The University. The sentencing judge found the Defendant acted on the spur of the moment and partly out of panic. The judge categorized the offence under the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline as culpability category B (not highly dangerous weapon) and harm category 3B (serious but not grave injury), resulting in a 30-month sentence, which was below the guideline starting point of 4 years.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant’s car constituted a "highly dangerous weapon" for sentencing categorization purposes.
2. Whether the injury sustained by the victim qualified as "grave injury" under the sentencing guidelines.
3. Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to aggravating factors, including the Defendant’s intoxication and leaving the scene, versus mitigating factors such as remorse and good character.
4. Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The judge erred in categorizing the car as not a highly dangerous weapon, citing precedent where vehicles were so categorized.
• The judge should have found the victim’s injury grave, placing harm in category 2, as lasting harm is not a prerequisite.
• The judge failed to properly weigh aggravating factors, particularly intoxication and leaving the scene, giving excessive weight to mitigating factors.

Defendant's Arguments

• The sentence, while lenient and merciful, was not unduly lenient and was justified by the judge’s assessment of the facts and legal principles.
• The car was not a highly dangerous weapon in this case as the Defendant was driving lawfully until the incident arose suddenly; precedent cited involved prior unlawful violence.
• Serious injury does not necessarily equate to harm greater than the base level; no evidence of lasting harm was presented.
• The balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors was a matter for the judge’s discretion and was not clearly erroneous.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the CCTV evidence and the trial judge’s findings, emphasizing the importance of the factual context in sentencing categorization. The judge’s assessment that the Defendant’s car was not a "highly dangerous weapon" was grounded in the fact that the Defendant was driving normally and without criminal intent until the incident arose suddenly and spontaneously. The court found this approach reasonable and not irrational, noting that prior cases involving vehicles as weapons generally involved premeditated or ongoing unlawful violence, which was absent here.

Regarding harm, the court acknowledged the serious injuries but agreed with the judge’s view that the injury was not grave within the meaning of the sentencing guideline, particularly given the victim’s good recovery and lack of evidence of lasting harm. The court recognized the 2021 guideline revision allowing nuanced harm assessment and found the judge’s reliance on the transient nature of injury permissible.

The court also considered the balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors, observing that while the sentence was lenient, it was a merciful sentence within the judge’s discretion. The reduction from the guideline starting point was generous but not unreasonable. The court underscored the principle that sentencing is an art, not a science, and that the trial judge’s proximity to the facts commands respect for her discretion.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentencing judge’s categorization and assessment did not constitute clear error and that the sentence did not fall outside the reasonable range of appropriate sentences. Therefore, the Solicitor General’s application to refer the sentence as unduly lenient was refused.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO REFER THE SENTENCE imposed on the Defendant for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was deemed merciful but not unduly lenient.

The direct effect is that the Defendant’s sentence stands as imposed, with no alteration. The court’s decision does not establish new precedent but reaffirms the principles governing the categorization of vehicles as weapons, harm assessment under the revised sentencing guideline, and the scope of judicial discretion in sentencing. The ruling emphasizes respect for trial judges' fact-finding and sentencing judgments absent clear error.