R v Zac Newman

In sentencing for murder, a vehicle may be treated as a weapon taken to the scene where the offender deliberately drives it at people, even if it was not initially intended for that purpose. The 25-year starting point under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was therefore properly used. In deciding whether the resulting minimum term is manifestly excessive, the court should focus on the particular factual matrix; non-guideline vehicle cases offer little assistance. Multiple victims, intoxication, premeditation and the significant risk created by the driving may outweigh mitigation based on short-lived premeditation, lack of intent to kill and youth.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Derby, the applicant was convicted of murder, wounding with intent and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 24 years, together with concurrent sentences for the other offences and activation of a suspended sentence. He sought an extension of 199 days to renew his application for leave to appeal sentence. The challenge to the 25-year starting point, based on the van not being a weapon taken to the scene, was abandoned following R v Deeprose [2024] EWCA Crim 1431. The remaining issue was whether the factual circumstances and mitigation made the minimum term manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. The application for an extension of time was refused. Granting it would serve no useful purpose because the proposed sentence appeal was not arguable.
2. The applicant accepted, following R v Deeprose [2024] EWCA Crim 1431, that the van was properly treated as a weapon taken to the scene. The 25-year starting point under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was therefore properly adopted, notwithstanding his earlier intention to leave the van and walk home.
3. The court considered the matter afresh but agreed completely with the single judge’s reasons. Other vehicle cases which were not guideline cases offered little assistance. The sentence had to be assessed against the factual matrix of this case.
4. The van was deliberately driven at a group of people. There was more than one victim, the applicant was intoxicated, and the offending was clearly premeditated. His possible lack of knowledge that the deceased was trapped beneath the van did not materially reduce the seriousness of the conduct, because he ran a significant risk that this was so.
5. The short duration of the premeditation, the absence of an intention to kill, the applicant’s age and other mitigation did not make the 24-year minimum term arguably or manifestly excessive. The applications were refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 6 February 2026, refused the application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal sentence.
2. Crown Court at Derby: convicted the applicant of murder, wounding with intent and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, and imposed a life sentence with a 24-year minimum term, concurrent sentences for the other offences and activation of a suspended sentence.