R v Jake Patrick Weston

Where an offender accelerates a vehicle knowing that a pedestrian is beneath it, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm may be self-evident. In any event, an intention to avoid arrest combined with gross recklessness as to the harm caused can justify applying the sentencing guideline for a section 18 offence.

A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because the sentencing judge could have adopted a different route to reflect the lead offence, associated offending and overall criminality. A statutory extension to a driving disqualification must be imposed under the provision applicable to the custodial sentence actually passed for the relevant offence.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Woolwich to nine offences, including wounding with intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension, aggravated vehicle taking and drug-supply offences. He drove a stolen vehicle at high speed while evading police, struck two road users and dragged a pedestrian beneath the vehicle, causing life-changing injuries.

The Recorder imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for the section 18 offence and concurrent sentences for the other indictable offences. He also imposed a 12-year driving disqualification by adding an eight-year extension to a four-year disqualification for drug driving.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to challenge the imprisonment as manifestly excessive. The court also considered whether the statutory basis for the driving disqualification and its extension periods was correct.

1. The challenge to the custodial sentence failed. The Recorder was entitled to apply the guideline for the offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The finding that the applicant accelerated while knowing that the pedestrian was under the vehicle was unchallengeable. It made an intention to cause grievous bodily harm self-evident. Alternatively, the applicant intended to avoid arrest and was grossly reckless as to the harm caused after the pedestrian had been struck.

2. The Recorder had identified substantial aggravating features. The applicant’s mitigation had received more than adequate credit. The episode involved exceptionally dangerous driving in a residential area, risks to numerous members of the public, three injured people and serious injury to one victim. It arose wholly from drug dealing. The 12-year sentence was therefore not manifestly excessive, although the Recorder could instead have selected a lower notional sentence for the section 18 offence and uplifted it for the other offending and total criminality.

3. The appeal was allowed only to correct the driving-disqualification order. Section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not apply to the drug-driving offence because no custodial sentence had been imposed for that offence. The court imposed a 12-month disqualification for aggravated vehicle taking, concurrent with the four-year drug-driving disqualification, with a 10½-month extension. Under section 35B of that Act, it imposed a further extension of seven years and 1½ months because of the custodial sentence for the section 18 offence.

4. The resulting order was a four-year disqualification with extension periods totalling eight years. The sentence was varied accordingly, but this made no material difference to the total period of disqualification.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted leave on the driving-disqualification issue, allowed the appeal to correct the statutory basis of the order, and otherwise refused leave to appeal against the custodial sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 1658.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — on 2 October 2023, imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for the section 18 offence and concurrent sentences for the remaining indictable offences, together with a 12-year driving disqualification.