Akbar, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 16 January 2022, the Defendant, then aged 29, was driving a black Mercedes AMG on the A34 dual carriageway at approximately 100 mph, twice the 50 mph speed limit. The Defendant overtook a van driven by a third party and collided with a Ford vehicle driven by the deceased, Mr. Salt, who was attempting to cross the carriageway via a gap in the central reservation. The collision caused the deaths of Mr. Salt and Mrs. Salt, a passenger in the Ford, and serious injury to a third party, Ms. Lapina, who was a passenger in the Defendant's vehicle.

The Defendant initially indicated an intention to contest the charges but later pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving on 2 June 2023. A Newton hearing was held to resolve disputed facts concerning the circumstances of the collision, particularly the Defendant's speed and ability to avoid the collision.

At sentencing on 9 July 2024, the Crown Court sentenced the Defendant to 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment concurrently on each count, with a driving disqualification of 9 years and 8 months. The Defendant appealed the sentence as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, while His Majesty's Attorney General applied for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. Both applications were heard by this Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Defendant was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. Whether the sentence was unduly lenient, considering the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and sentencing guidelines.
3. The appropriate reduction in sentence credit for the Defendant's guilty plea, particularly in light of a Newton hearing that rejected part of the Defendant's basis of plea.
4. The proper application of the current sentencing guideline for causing death by dangerous driving, including categorisation and adjustment for multiple deaths.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

• The notional sentence of 10 years before reduction for guilty pleas failed sufficiently to reflect the seriousness of causing two deaths, the presence of others in the vehicles, and the totality of the Defendant's offending.
• The reduction of 15% for the Defendant's guilty plea was too generous; according to the relevant guideline paragraph F2, the reduction should normally be halved where the Defendant's version was rejected at a Newton hearing, potentially reduced further if witnesses were called.
• The judge did not explain why she allowed a 15% reduction instead of the guideline-indicated 10%.

Defendant's Arguments

• The judge did not give sufficient credit for the Defendant's personal mitigation, including positive good character and genuine remorse.
• The only factor justifying categorisation as category A was excessive speed, which was described as a momentary lapse in judgment rather than a prolonged deliberate course of dangerous conduct.
• The failure of Mrs. Salt to wear a seatbelt was a significant contributory factor to her death and should have been considered in mitigation.
• The Newton hearing's expansion beyond the original contested issue should not prejudice the Defendant's credit for plea, as the original dispute was a mathematical question about avoidability of the collision.
• The Defendant was acting on legal advice throughout, contrasting with defendants who raise spurious points to improve their position.
• As a fallback, the Attorney General’s acceptance that a reduction from 14 years by 3 years would be acceptable supports the submission that the sentence was not unduly lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analysed the sentencing judge’s application of the current sentencing guideline for causing death by dangerous driving, which applies a starting point of 12 years for category A cases. The judge reduced the starting point to 10 years, reasoning that the case did not involve other aggravating features such as impaired driving or pursuit, and that the Defendant’s conscious speeding was a deliberate disregard of road rules.

The judge imposed concurrent sentences for the two deaths, reflecting overall criminality and avoiding breach of the totality principle, resulting in a notional sentence close to the statutory maximum of 14 years, which was the maximum applicable due to the date of offence.

The Court found the judge’s reduction of 4 years for personal mitigation generous but not unreasonable, acknowledging the Defendant’s positive character, remorse, and mental health struggles.

Regarding the reduction for the guilty plea, the Court noted the judge allowed 15%, less than the 20% that would have applied but more than the 10% suggested by the guideline paragraph F2 due to the Newton hearing rejecting part of the Defendant’s plea basis. The judge did not explicitly reference this guideline or explain the deviation.

The Court concluded that, while the Attorney General’s submission that the sentence was marginally lenient had merit, the degree of leniency did not justify intervention. The Defendant’s appeal against sentence was rejected as manifestly excessive claims were unfounded.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED LEAVE to the Attorney General to refer the sentence but DISMISSED THE REFERENCE on grounds of undue leniency. The Defendant’s appeal against sentence was also DISMISSED.

The direct effect is that the sentence imposed by the Crown Court stands unchanged. No new legal precedent was established by this decision. The case affirms the application of current sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving, particularly the approach to multiple deaths, personal mitigation, and credit for guilty pleas following Newton hearings.