R v Adam Ali

In sentencing an adult who committed serious dangerous-driving offences at 18, the court must apply the sentencing guideline and reach a just and proportionate sentence after considering the whole case. Later offending cannot alter the culpability or harm classification of the earlier offence, and it is not a previous conviction for fixing its starting point. It may, however, undermine mitigation and make a community or suspended sentence unrealistic. Youth remains significant mitigation after the offender’s 18th birthday, but the reduction must reflect the offender’s degree of maturity and the circumstances of the case. Persistent offending after the incident may negate remorse and reduce the weight of personal mitigation.

The Attorney General’s Reference arose from a sentence imposed in the Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester, after Adam Ali pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The offences were committed when he was 18, after driving at over 60 mph on a wet urban 30 mph road and losing control of the vehicle. One passenger died and another was seriously injured.

His Honour Judge Usher imposed four years’ detention, with concurrent detention on the second count, and driving disqualifications. The Solicitor General argued that the sentence was unduly lenient because the offending belonged in culpability category A, the mitigation was excessive, and the disqualification was too short. The central issues were the relevance of later offending, the effect of youth and remorse, and the appropriate sentence.

The Attorney General’s Reference was allowed and the sentence was increased. Leave was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The sentence of four years’ detention on count 1 was quashed as unduly lenient.

1. The driving was properly categorised as culpability A under the applicable guideline. Driving at very excessive speed on a wet urban road was a deliberate decision to drive at a speed significantly above the limit and highly inappropriate for the conditions. The starting point was 12 years’ custody. Because excessive speed was the critical and single culpability A factor, the court adjusted that to 10 years before considering harm.
2. The death of one passenger, the significant injury to another, and the serious risk to a third passenger justified increasing the sentence at that stage to 12 years. The later offences could not aggravate the culpability or harm classification of the 2022 offences and were not previous convictions for fixing the starting point. But they were relevant at the final stage of sentencing because they undermined mitigation and made a community disposal or suspended sentence unrealistic: R v Darrigan [2017] EWCA Crim 169, as explained and applied in R v McDonnell [2021] EWCA Crim 281.
3. Youth was the only significant mitigation. An offender just past 18 is sentenced within the adult range but may still merit a reduction because 18 does not mark full maturity. The proportionate reduction was from 12 years to eight years. Remorse attracted no mitigation because the offender had minimised responsibility and continued to offend.
4. The guilty-plea credit remained 20 per cent, producing 76 months’ detention on count 1. The concurrent sentence on count 2 and the other orders remained in place. The driving disqualification was increased to eight years and two months, comprising five years plus 38 months linked to the custodial term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was granted leave. The court quashed the four-year sentence on count 1 as unduly lenient and substituted 76 months’ detention, increasing the related disqualification to eight years and two months.
• Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester: On 27 January 2025, His Honour Judge Usher sentenced the offender to four years’ detention on count 1 and a concurrent 18-month term on count 2, with associated driving orders.