Raja & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7 June 2019, a fatal road traffic collision occurred on a flyover involving multiple high performance vehicles travelling at excessive speeds. The victims, an elderly man and his wife, were driving a Lexus when it was struck from behind by a green-wrapped BMW driven by the Defendant referred to as Applicant 1. The collision caused the death of the man and serious injuries to his wife. Another vehicle, a Porsche driven by Applicant 2, was also involved in the incident. Applicant 1 initially pleaded guilty to causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving on 19 January 2022, but this plea was later abandoned. Following a retrial held on 6 November 2023, Applicant 2 was convicted by a jury of causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving related to the same incident. Both applicants were sentenced on 15 February 2024 to terms of imprisonment and driving disqualifications. Applicant 2 seeks leave to appeal against conviction, while Applicant 1 seeks leave to appeal against sentence after prior refusals by a single judge. The court reviewed written and oral submissions, prosecution evidence including CCTV footage, and the trial record.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the convictions of Applicant 2 for causing death and serious injury by dangerous driving are arguably unsafe, particularly regarding the judge's directions to the jury on the evidential weight of the applicant's police interview.
2. Whether the judge erred in allowing the jury to continue deliberations while the prosecution was undecided about adding an alternative count to the indictment, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial for Applicant 2.
3. Whether the sentence imposed on Applicant 1 was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, especially in light of delay and changes in sentencing guidelines.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant 2's Arguments

• The judge erred by directing the jury that the police interview was not evidence of the facts stated, except for admissions supporting the prosecution, failing to treat it as a mixed statement containing both inculpatory and exculpatory elements.
• This misdirection undermined Applicant 2’s defence, which relied entirely on the interview as he did not give evidence at trial.
• The judge should not have allowed the jury to continue deliberations while the prosecution was still considering adding an alternative count, as this deprived Applicant 2 of a reasonable possibility of acquittal and further directions to the jury.

Applicant 1's Arguments

• The sentence imposed was excessive given the significant delay between the early guilty pleas and sentencing, especially considering changes in sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving.
• The delay caused prejudice, warranting a substantial reduction in sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the trial record, the judge's directions to the jury, and the evidence, including CCTV footage. It found that the judge erred in her written directions by instructing the jury that the police interview was only evidence of the applicant's reaction and attitude rather than evidence of the facts stated, except for admissions. The court acknowledged that established authority requires the jury be directed that the entire interview is evidence when it contains both inculpatory and exculpatory remarks. However, the court noted that the judge later gave clear oral directions encouraging the jury to consider the interview in its entirety, and that the misdirection was not highlighted by counsel at trial.

Regarding the jury's deliberations, the court assessed whether the judge pressured the jury by allowing them to continue deliberating while the prosecution considered adding an alternative count. It concluded that the judge's conduct was appropriate as she acknowledged the jury's concerns without reproach or pressure, assuring them that their previous note was not ignored. There was no indication that the verdicts were unsafe due to this procedural issue.

On the sentencing appeal, the court reviewed the judge's detailed remarks, which took into account the severity and persistence of the dangerous driving, aggravating factors including false number plates and prior offending, and the impact on victims. The court found no error in principle in applying the new sentencing guideline effective at the time of sentence rather than the time of offending. It also found that the judge properly considered delay but concluded that the delay did not cause significant prejudice warranting a reduction.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction by Applicant 2, concluding that the convictions were not arguably unsafe despite the judge's error in directions on the interview evidence. Similarly, it REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence by Applicant 1, finding no arguable error or manifest excess in the sentence imposed.

These decisions uphold the convictions and sentences as determined by the Crown Court. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed the application of existing principles regarding jury directions on mixed statements and the approach to sentencing guidelines and delay.