Shah, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

With leave of the Single Judge, the Appellant appealed against a sentence of 7 years and 6 months' custody for causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, imposed by the Crown Court in The City. The Appellant was also disqualified from driving for 6 years and ordered to pay the statutory surcharge. [Para 25]

The incident occurred on 15 July 2025 on The Road in The City, when the Appellant intentionally drove his car at the Victim and crushed him between two cars, causing multiple fractures and breaks to his legs. The Victim required repeated hospital treatment and surgery, continues to suffer pain and stiffness, and the injuries were described as permanent. [Para 26][Para 31]

The Appellant and the Victim knew each other through a loose family connection, and there had been animosity between them arising from the break-up of a relationship. CCTV showed the Victim's vehicle apparently chasing the Appellant's vehicle, then overtaking, cutting in, and reversing toward it before the Appellant accelerated hard at the Victim; after the collision, the Appellant reversed, made a U-turn, and left the scene, later attempting to leave the country before he was arrested. [Para 28][Para 29][Para 30][Para 31]

The Appellant initially told the police and set out in his first Defence Case Statement that he had been trying to reverse and accidentally drove forward because the car was not in reverse gear. He later pleaded guilty on the first day of trial and received a 10% credit; in sentencing submissions, it was accepted that a car had been used as a highly dangerous weapon, but it was argued that Category C applied because of excessive self-defence. The Appellant was 27 at sentence, had three convictions for seven offences, and had not previously received a custodial sentence. [Para 32][Para 33][Para 34]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was wrong to treat the offence as Category A culpability rather than Category B under the Sentencing Council guidelines, in light of the Appellant's claim of excessive self-defence. [Para 33][Para 36][Para 44]
2. Whether the sentencing judge engaged in double counting by treating the use of the vehicle as an aggravating feature after it had already been used to place the offence in Category A. [Para 45][Para 54]
3. Whether the judge was entitled to treat the public location, the alarm caused to others, and the presence of a young child in the Appellant's vehicle as aggravating features. [Para 46][Para 54]
4. Whether the final sentence of 7 years and 6 months was manifestly excessive. [Para 55]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge should have found Category B culpability because the Category A feature of using a car as a highly dangerous weapon was said to be displaced by the Category C feature of excessive self-defence, producing a starting point of 5 years rather than 7. [Para 44]
• The judge was said to have double counted the vehicle's use by treating it as an additional aggravating feature after it had already been used to classify the offence in Category A. [Para 45]
• The judge was said to have wrongly treated the public setting, the alarm to bystanders, and the presence of a young child in the Appellant's car as aggravating when the incident was said to be unpremeditated and caused by the Victim's confrontation. [Para 46]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that there appeared to have been no request for, or consideration of, a Newton hearing, although it said one should have been sought if excessive self-defence was genuinely advanced and capable of materially affecting the guideline starting point. [Para 49]

The Court nevertheless said it could understand why the point was not pressed, because the CCTV was strong and made self-defence difficult to sustain; the Appellant's earlier accounts were different, and the footage appeared to show a deliberate decision to drive at the Victim at speed with intent to cause really serious harm. The Court observed that insisting on a Newton hearing in the face of that evidence might have risked losing the 10% guilty plea discount, but said the issue should still have been clarified in open court. [Para 50]

The Court held that the judge was entitled to classify the offence as Category A because the Appellant used a car as a highly dangerous weapon or weapon equivalent, with harm correctly treated as Category 2. It also held that the judge was entitled to reject the excessive self-defence submission, because the CCTV contradicted that account. [Para 51][Para 52]

The Court further held that the upward adjustment was justified by the seriousness of the injuries, the impact on the Victim, the Appellant's deliberate choice to drive at the Victim in public in front of other road users and with a young child in the car, the deterrent principle, the manner of vehicle use, the attempt to leave the country, and the previous convictions. The Court rejected the double-counting complaint and said the judge was entitled to reduce the sentence for mitigation and the day-of-trial guilty plea to arrive at 7 years and 6 months. [Para 54][Para 55]

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The sentence of 7 years and 6 months' custody, together with the driving disqualification and surcharge, was upheld, and the opinion indicates only the direct effect on the Appellant; no broader precedent discussion was provided. [Para 25][Para 55]