R v Sunil Shah

Where excessive self-defence is advanced as affecting sentencing categorisation, the issue should be clarified in open court, ordinarily through a Newton hearing. A sentencing judge may reject the contention where objective evidence contradicts it.

The use of a car as a highly dangerous weapon or weapon equivalent can place an offence in Culpability Category A under the Sentencing Council guidelines. The judge may adjust the sentence for the seriousness and lasting impact of injuries, deliberate conduct in a public place, the presence of a child, deterrence, attempts to evade justice and previous convictions. Treating the vehicle’s use as a further relevant feature was not impermissible double counting. An appeal against sentence will fail where the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed with leave against a sentence of 7 years and 6 months’ custody imposed by the Crown Court at Bradford for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had deliberately driven a car at the victim during a confrontation, causing permanent and serious leg injuries. He pleaded guilty on the first day of trial and received 10 per cent credit.

The appeal challenged the classification of culpability, the treatment of excessive self-defence, alleged double counting of the vehicle’s use, and the treatment of the public setting and a child in the vehicle as aggravating features. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had adopted the wrong guideline approach and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The final sentence of 7 years and 6 months was not manifestly excessive.
2. Where excessive self-defence is genuinely advanced and is said to have a material effect on the guideline starting point, there should be consideration of, or a request for, a Newton hearing. The issue should be clarified in open court. The absence of such a hearing was a procedural shortcoming, although the court could understand why counsel did not press the issue because the CCTV evidence risked undermining the guilty plea discount.
3. The CCTV showed that the appellant had opportunities to drive away but instead deliberately aligned the vehicle with the victim and accelerated towards him. His initial account to the police and in his Defence Case Statement was materially different and did not rely on self-defence. The judge was therefore entitled to reject excessive self-defence and to place the offence in Culpability Category A because the car was used as a highly dangerous weapon or weapon equivalent. There was no criticism of the assessment of harm as Category 2.
4. The judge was entitled to make an upward adjustment from the 7-year starting point. Relevant features included the severity and lasting impact of the injuries, which were towards the top of Category 2; the deliberate attack in the middle of the day on a public road; the presence of a young child in the vehicle; the deterrent principle; the attempt to leave the country; and the appellant’s previous convictions. The absence of premeditation and possible provocation did not prevent those features being aggravating. Considering the way in which the car was used was not impermissible double counting.
5. The judge then made a downward adjustment for mitigation and the day-of-trial guilty plea. The sentence and ancillary orders therefore stood.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was held not to be manifestly excessive: [2026] EWCA Crim 1073 .
2. Crown Court at Bradford: His Honour Judge Nadim imposed 7 years and 6 months’ custody, a 6-year driving disqualification and the statutory surcharge.