Weston, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 May 2023, in the Crown Court at Woolwich, the Appellant (then aged 28) changed his pleas to guilty on nine offences, with other offences ordered to lie on the file. He also pleaded guilty to seven further offences listed in a section 51 schedule. On 2 October 2023, the Appellant was sentenced. The Recorder identified the lead offence as wounding with intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, imposing a 12-year imprisonment sentence for that count.

Additional concurrent sentences were imposed for various indictable offences including possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply, aggravated vehicle taking, and possession of a prohibited weapon. The offences involved Class A and B controlled substances and offences relating to vehicle theft and weapon possession.

The facts leading to the offences arose from a police pursuit on 17 September 2021 in Forest Hill, London. The Appellant was driving a stolen Hyundai Tucson with false number plates, accompanied by two other males. When police attempted to stop the vehicle, it initially slowed but then accelerated, leading to a high-speed chase through residential areas at speeds exceeding the 20 mph limit. The vehicle swerved into oncoming traffic and struck a motorcyclist and a pedestrian, causing serious injuries. The pedestrian was dragged under the vehicle for approximately 100 metres before coming loose. The vehicle eventually overturned and stopped, and the Appellant was apprehended and arrested.

Items found associated with the Appellant included drugs (cocaine, MDMA, cannabis), cash, pepper spray, digital scales, and his passport. The Appellant denied driving the vehicle and largely remained silent during interviews, only admitting to drug dealing in a Defence Statement.

The injured parties included the motorcyclist, who suffered no lasting injuries, another driver who sustained whiplash, and the pedestrian who sustained grievous, life-changing injuries requiring extensive hospital treatment and surgery.

The Recorder concluded the vehicle was deliberately used as a highly dangerous weapon and categorised the offence accordingly. Aggravating factors included the Appellant’s drug influence, multiple injured persons, and the presence of children in the area.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed for the section 18 offence was manifestly excessive, given the Appellant’s intent and culpability.
2. Whether the vehicle was used as a weapon in the legal sense contemplated by the sentencing guideline.
3. Whether the injuries to the pedestrian justified an uplift from the category 1 harm starting point in sentencing.
4. Whether the sentencing judge adequately accounted for the Appellant’s mitigation.
5. Whether the periods of driving disqualification imposed were lawful and correctly calculated under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the notional sentence, which exceeded the category starting point by three years, was manifestly excessive.
• He argued that the car was not intended as a weapon but as a means of escape, and that he did not intend to harm the pedestrian or use the vehicle as a weapon in the sense intended by the sentencing guideline.
• The Appellant submitted that although the pedestrian’s injuries fell within category 1 harm, they were not so grave as to justify an uplift from the starting point.
• He further argued that the sentence insufficiently reflected his mitigation.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court found no substance in the Appellant’s submissions regarding the application of the section 18 Guideline, affirming the finding that the Appellant accelerated knowing the pedestrian was under the car, implying intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
• Alternatively, the court noted gross recklessness and intent to avoid arrest justified the sentence application.
• The court found the aggravating features and mitigation credit properly assessed and sufficient.
• The court acknowledged the Recorder could have approached sentencing differently but concluded the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive given the overall criminality.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the application of the section 18 sentencing guideline and found the sentencing judge’s factual findings unchallengeable. The deliberate acceleration while the pedestrian was under the vehicle demonstrated intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Even absent intent, the combined factors of intent to avoid arrest and gross recklessness supported the sentence imposed. The Recorder’s identification of aggravating factors and the allowance for mitigation were deemed appropriate and balanced. The court noted that although the Recorder could have structured the sentence differently by adjusting the notional sentence and then uplifting for overall criminality, the final sentence was justified by the severity of the conduct and injuries. Regarding driving disqualification periods, the court identified errors in the original sentencing order relating to statutory provisions and corrected the disqualification periods accordingly, imposing concurrent disqualifications with extensions reflecting custodial sentences.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court refused leave to appeal against the length of the custodial sentence, holding it was not manifestly excessive. However, the court granted leave to appeal regarding the driving disqualification period, allowed that appeal, and varied the sentence to correct the disqualification periods. This variation did not materially alter the overall period of disqualification. The decision directly affects the Appellant’s sentence and driving disqualification but does not establish new legal precedent.