R v Zakatiya Navid

In sentencing for causing death by careless driving, culpability may properly be placed in category A where speed and conditions make the driving just short of dangerous driving, even if the identified guideline factor appears in category B. The sentencer must weigh all aggravating and mitigating features, including substantial personal mitigation, and give an appropriate guilty-plea reduction. An unexplained or excessive notional sentence after trial may be reconsidered on appeal. Strong prospects of rehabilitation do not require suspension where the offending and its aftermath make immediate custody the only proportionate punishment. On reducing custody, the court must recalculate any consequential driving disqualification, including the statutory extension and the effect of interim disqualification.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to causing death by careless driving and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. He was sentenced on 12 August 2025 to concurrent terms of 26 months’ imprisonment, together with driving disqualification and an extended retest requirement.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offending belonged in culpability category B, that the sentence before credit for his guilty plea was excessive, and that the custodial sentence should have been suspended. The Crown resisted the appeal. The central issues were the proper guideline category, the weight given to mitigation and the guilty plea, the necessity for immediate custody, and the consequential disqualification.

1. Sentence and appellate assessment. The appeal was allowed in part. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in culpability category A and to move upwards from its two-year starting point. However, the judge’s notional sentence after trial of 33 months was too long, and the unexplained calculation of an equivalent 30½-month sentence justified the Court of Appeal considering for itself whether the sentence was within an appropriate range.
2. Guideline assessment. The very excessive speed in poor conditions was an extreme example of a category B factor and brought the driving just below the threshold for dangerous driving. The aggravating factors could outweigh the mitigation, but the extensive personal mitigation required a substantial downward adjustment. The proper notional sentence after trial was in the region of 26 months. Applying an appropriate 15 per cent reduction for the guilty plea produced a sentence of 22 months.
3. Suspension. Immediate custody remained necessary despite the appellant’s age, immaturity, good character, rehabilitation prospects, low risk of reoffending, and exemplary conduct in custody. The seriousness of the driving and his conduct after the collision meant that the punishment could only be achieved by immediate imprisonment.
4. Disqualification. Applying the guidance in R v Needham & Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 455, the discretionary disqualification was set at two years. Under section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the extension was one-half of the custodial term, namely 11 months. The total disqualification was therefore two years and 11 months, concurrent on both counts. The extended retest requirement remained.
5. Interim disqualification. Section 26(12) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 automatically reduced the disqualification by any period of interim disqualification. The operative period ran from the date sentence was pronounced, not from the interim order. The Crown Court record was directed to be amended.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2026] EWCA Crim 163: appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to 22 months and disqualification recalculated.
• Crown Court at Nottingham — on 12 August 2025, His Honour Judge Steven Coupland sentenced the appellant to 26 months’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences on the two counts, and imposed driving disqualification and an extended retest requirement.