R v Imran Malik

Sentencing guidelines must be followed rationally and with clear explanation of any significant movement from the guideline starting point. A court must avoid double counting the same aggravating feature. Excessive speed may justify an uplift in a careless-driving fatality case, particularly where the circumstances bring the offence close to dangerous driving, but the uplift must be justified and proportionate. Genuine remorse is mitigating. Good character ordinarily attracts no further discount where the guideline assumes it. A victim’s contribution should be considered only where it genuinely contributed to the commission of the offence. An appellate court may substitute a lower custodial sentence where the sentencing exercise involved an unexplained and excessive uplift.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Birmingham to causing death by careless driving, contrary to Road Traffic Act 1988, section 2B. The offence arose when he drove a Range Rover at about 56 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour area and struck a pedestrian crossing between stationary vehicles. The Crown Court imposed 27 months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for three years, extended by 13 and a half months.

On renewal of his application for leave to appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence overstated the aggravating effect of his speed, failed to reflect remorse and other mitigation, and should take account of the pedestrian’s conduct. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the relevant Sentencing Council guideline and justified the movement from its 15-month starting point.

The court granted leave, allowed the application to the extent stated, quashed the 27-month sentence and substituted immediate custody for 17 months. It reduced the driving disqualification to two years, extended by eight months to reflect imprisonment, producing 32 months’ disqualification from the date of sentence.

1. Application of guidelines. Under section 59 of the Sentencing Code, courts must follow a relevant sentencing guideline unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. The guideline must be applied rationally and explained clearly. Any departure requires reasons.
2. Unexplained uplift and double counting. The guideline’s starting point was 15 months, within a range of nine months to three years. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the excessive speed, in the prevailing road conditions and near a rise restricting visibility, as taking the offence not far short of dangerous driving and to impose an uplift. However, the judge gave no adequate reason for moving to 32 months and failed to avoid double counting the effect of the speed at the time of impact. The provisional sentence after trial should have been 20 months.
3. Mitigation and victim contribution. Good character required no additional reduction because it was assumed by the guideline. Genuine remorse was mitigating. The victim’s conduct did not contribute to the commission of the offence on these facts. It was unfair to criticise the victim’s reaction when confronted with the speeding vehicle. The appellant’s family circumstances were ordinary and did not materially reduce the sentence.
4. Final sentence. Applying the 15 per cent reduction for the late guilty plea produced a sentence of about 17 months. Immediate custody remained necessary to provide adequate punishment. The disqualification period was reduced and the extension recalculated accordingly.

• Crown Court at Birmingham: The appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and was sentenced on 19 April 2023 to 27 months’ imprisonment, with driving disqualification for three years plus a 13-and-a-half-month extension.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted. The sentence was quashed and replaced with 17 months’ immediate custody. Disqualification was reduced to 32 months from sentence.