R v Anop Singh

A sentence for dangerous driving that exceeds the statutory maximum is unlawful and must be quashed and replaced with a lawful sentence. The appellate court may correct that error while refusing leave to appeal against the remaining sentences. A late challenge to guideline categorisation, mitigation or overall length should be refused where the grounds are not reasonably arguable. The court must not use the correction of an error to increase an ancillary order, because that would deal with the offender more severely on appeal.

R v Anop Singh concerned convictions at Wood Green Crown Court, before HHJ Lucas KC, for causing death by dangerous driving, dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice. The applicant received 12 years’ imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, 30 months’ concurrent imprisonment for dangerous driving, and two years’ consecutive imprisonment for perverting the course of justice.

He sought a substantial extension of time and renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence. The principal challenge was to the categorisation and length of the sentences. A separate issue arose because the 30-month sentence for dangerous driving exceeded the 24-month maximum. The court also considered whether it could correct an apparent error in the period of driving disqualification.

The court extended time and granted leave only in respect of count 2. Leave and an extension of time were refused in respect of counts 1 and 3.

1. Counts 1 and 3. The challenges to those sentences were not reasonably arguable. The driving fell plainly within Level 1 of the applicable sentencing guideline. It involved grossly excessive speed, the deliberate driving of the vehicle over the victim, and a deliberate disregard of the grave danger to other road users. Its seriousness was further elevated by the applicant’s adverse driving history and his use of drugs and alcohol. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the asserted mitigation did not reduce the 12-year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving.
2. Count 2. The 30-month concurrent sentence for dangerous driving was unlawful because the maximum sentence for that offence was 24 months. The court quashed the 30-month sentence and substituted a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.
3. Driving disqualification. The sentencing judge may have failed to allow for the consecutive two-year sentence when fixing the extension period for disqualification. However, an increase at this stage would breach the prohibition on dealing with an offender more severely on appeal. The court therefore made no alteration to the disqualification period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2025] EWCA Crim 828, the Full Court extended time and granted leave only on count 2, quashed the unlawful 30-month sentence for dangerous driving, and substituted 24 months. It refused leave and an extension of time on counts 1 and 3.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — under [T20197501], HHJ Lucas KC convicted the applicant on 11 May 2022 and, on 13 May 2022, imposed a total of 14 years’ imprisonment with driving disqualification.