R v Danial Arshad

A driving disqualification serves several purposes, not merely future public protection. It also operates as punishment and deterrence, and its punitive effect forms an important part of the overall sentence. The court must have regard to the statutory purposes of sentencing, while avoiding a period longer than necessary and considering rehabilitation, including employment effects. A low risk of reoffending and an extended retest are relevant but do not displace punishment and deterrence. In a serious case, a three-year disqualification was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to causing serious injury by careless driving and driving under the influence of drugs. He received concurrent suspended terms of imprisonment, requirements for unpaid work and rehabilitation, and a three-year driving disqualification with an extended retest. With permission, he appealed only against the length of the disqualification. He argued that the principal purpose was preventative, that his risk of reoffending was low, and that the extended retest provided additional public protection. The central issue was whether the three-year period was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against the period of disqualification was dismissed, subject to correction of the statutory surcharge record.

1. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, a minimum period of 12 months’ disqualification was mandatory in the absence of special reasons. The issue was the discretionary period imposed above that minimum.
2. Disqualification in road traffic cases serves several aims. These include public protection, punishment and deterrence. It is an important element of the overall punishment, and its punitive effect is part of its function: R v Acton [2018] EWCA Crim 2410.
3. The Sentencing Council guidance required regard to the purposes of sentencing in section 57 of the Sentencing Code, including punishment, reduction of crime, reform and rehabilitation, and public protection. The court should not impose a period longer than necessary and should bear rehabilitation in mind, including the effect of disqualification on employment or employment prospects.
4. The court accepted that the appellant presented a low risk of reoffending, had strong prospects of rehabilitation, and would be subject to an extended retest. Those matters were relevant but were not the only considerations. The seriousness of the careless driving and the resulting injuries justified a period reflecting punishment and deterrence. The sentencing judge’s failure to explain the figure of three years did not make it manifestly excessive.
5. The surcharge had apparently been recorded as two separate orders although it related to the sentence as a whole. That administrative error was directed to be corrected. Save for that correction, the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against the three-year driving disqualification was dismissed, with the surcharge record directed to be corrected: [2025] EWCA Crim 1367.
• Crown Court at Preston: The appellant was sentenced after pleading guilty to causing serious injury by careless driving and driving under the influence of drugs. A suspended sentence, community requirements, a three-year disqualification and an extended retest were imposed.