BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Weston, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1658 (05 December 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/1658.html
Cite as: [2024] EWCA Crim 1658

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWCA Crim 1658
CASE NO: 202303778 A1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WOOLWICH
MR RECORDER TURNER T20210189 & T20227127

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
5 December 2024

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE JEREMY BAKER
MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD
SIR NIGEL DAVIS

____________________

REGINA

- v -

JAKE PATRICK WESTON

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR RICHARD PATON-PHILIP appeared on behalf of the Applicant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT (AS APPROVED)
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MRS JUSTICE JEFFORD:

  1. On 9 May 2023 in the Crown Court at Woolwich, the applicant (then aged 28) changed his pleas to guilty on nine offences. Other offences were ordered to lie on the file. He also pleaded guilty to seven further offences set out in a section 51 schedule.
  2. On 2 October 2023, also in the Crown Court at Woolwich, the applicant was sentenced. The Recorder took as the lead offence the count of wounding with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of himself contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. For that offence a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was imposed.
  3. For the indictable offences the Recorder imposed further concurrent sentences as follows:
    • On count 1, possessing a controlled drug of Class B (namely cannabis) with intent to supply, 10 months' imprisonment.

    • On count 4, aggravated vehicle taking contrary to section 12A of the Theft Act 1968, 21 months' imprisonment.

    • On count 5, possessing a prohibited weapon, 5 months' imprisonment.

    • On count 7, possessing a controlled drug of Class A (namely cocaine) with intent to supply, 4 years' imprisonment.

    • On count 8, possessing a controlled drug of Class A (namely MDMA) with intent to supply, 4 years' imprisonment.

    • On count 9, possessing a controlled drug of Class B (namely cannabis) with intent to supply, 16 months' imprisonment.
  4. It is unnecessary at this point to say more about the sentences for the offences in the section 51 schedule.
  5. The Facts

  6. The material facts are as follows. On 17 September 2021 at around 5 pm, a number of police officers, in three unmarked cars, from the Violent Crime Task Force had been on patrol in Forest Hill, London SE23. They were stopped at some temporary traffic lights. As the lights turned green one of the police officers was looking at the stationary line of traffic waiting to pass in the opposite direction and spotted the applicant driving a Hyundai Tucson motor vehicle. At that stage the applicant had not seen the police officers. There were two other males in the car with him. The applicant then spotted the police officers and averted his gaze in what seemed to them to be a nervous manner, so the police officers decided to follow the Hyundai. The police officers activated their blue lights to order for the Hyundai to stop, and for a moment it appeared that it would. The car pulled over and almost came to a stop, before one of the police officers came round to the side of the car, but then it accelerated and pulled away. All three unmarked cars subsequently travelled at around 60 mph along residential roads to try to keep pace with the Hyundai. There was evidence that at one point the speed exceeded 70 mph. The speed limit at all times was 20 mph.
  7. The Hyundai swerved lanes on to the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic to avoid the police. The car struck a motorcyclist, Mr Kulendran, who had been travelling in the same direction as it. No attempt was made to avoid the collision and the motorcycle driver was knocked to the floor and left in the road.
  8. The car mounted the pavement and struck a pedestrian, Mr Plenderleith, who had been walking across the side road that Mr Kulendran had been trying to turn into. Mr Plenderleith was been knocked off his feet, first on to the bonnet of the car and then underneath the car. The car accelerated with Mr Plenderleith being dragged along underneath it for around 100 metres before he finally came loose. A number of other members of the public had been on the street at the time including a child.
  9. The Hyundai then hit the back of another vehicle driven by Mr Rae, who was driving in the same direction as it. The Hyundai turned over onto its roof and came to a halt. The applicant and one of his passengers were apprehended by the police and arrested.
  10. Much if not all of what had happened was captured on CCTV.
  11. Checks made on the Hyundai showed that it had been stolen and was being driven on false number plates. A number of different number plates were found in the vehicle when it was later examined. A black bag belonging to the applicant was found on the road by the Hyundai which contained items including pepper spray; 1.45 gms of cocaine at 60 to 80 per cent purity with an estimated street value of £140; 47 MDMA tablets with a street value of between £235 and £470; two bags of herbal cannabis weighing 11.6 gms; £1,190 in cash; a set of digital scales; and a passport in the applicant's name.
  12. The applicant was arrested. He denied being the driver of the Hyundai. In interview he answered 'no comment' to all questions. He provided a prepared statement in which he denied being the driver of the Hyundai, stating that someone else who had been the driver had made off from the scene. In a subsequent interview the applicant was shown CCTV footage and told of the injuries sustained by the victims and of the items found in his bag. He still answered 'no comment' to all questions asked. He thereafter conceded in the Defence Statement that he had been out selling drugs.
  13. As for the injured persons, Mr Kulendran was taken to University Lewisham Hospital as he had lost and then regained consciousness. There were no underlying injuries fortunately for him, and Mr Kulendran was discharged from hospital. Mr Rae suffered a whiplash-type injury and was told it would take 8 to 10 months to settle.
  14. Mr Plenderleith's injurieswere a different matter. He suffered extreme injuries, including a scalp wound and visible skull fractures. He was taken to hospital by air ambulance. He had multiple facial fractures, a fractured left clavicle, injuries to his abdomen, hands and legs, and a broken foot. Mr Plenderleith was taken to the Major Trauma Centre at King's College Hospital where surgery was performed to repair the skull fracture and he underwent further surgical procedures to treat his numerous injuries. Mr Plenderleith had no recollection of the incident. He spent 2 weeks in hospital in a coma. He remained in intensive care for 5 weeks as a result of his injuries. The count of section 18 wounding relates to the injuries to Mr Plenderleith.
  15. Sentencing

  16. In sentencing the applicant the Recorder set out the facts and that he had carefully reviewed the CCTV footage. He was satisfied that the applicant's making no attempt to avoid either Mr Plenderleith or Mr Kulendran was a deliberate action and that as a consequence the vehicle was used as a highly dangerous weapon. He also considered the injuries to Mr Plenderleith to be grievous and life changing. Having made those decisions and having regard to the Guideline, he placed the offence in category 1A, with a starting point of 12 years and a range of 10 to 16 years' imprisonment. He identified a number of aggravating factors: that the applicant was under the influence of drugs, that three people were in fact injured, and that children were present walking in a 20-mph area.
  17. In terms of mitigation the Recorder noted that the applicant had a diagnosis of PTSD but considered that that had nothing to do with his offending. He noted difficulties in the applicant's upbringing but did not consider that they offered any mitigation. Put shortly, he said the applicant had become involved in drug dealing and his offending flowed from that.
  18. The Recorder would have passed a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. He gave credit for the guilty plea on the day of trial of 10 per cent and then made a further reduction for mitigation. Although the mitigation ought to have been taken into account before the percentage reduction, the order that the Recorder adopted in fact favoured the applicant. By that route the Recorder reached his sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.
  19. The Recorder considered whether the sentences for the other offences should be consecutive or concurrent. He concluded that having regard to totality those sentences should be served concurrently.
  20. The Grounds of Appeal

  21. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the ground that the notional sentence, which was 3 years above the category starting point, was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that, in terms of culpability, the car was not intended for use as a weapon but as a means of escape; the applicant did not intend to harm Mr Plenderleith and did not use the car as a weapon in the sense intended by the guideline. These are matters which, although put slightly differently, Mr Paton-Philip has repeated before us today. Further it was argued that the injuries of Mr Plenderleith, although sufficiently grave to fall within category 1 harm, were not so particularly grave that they should have caused the judge to uplift the sentence from the starting point. The applicant also submitted that the sentence had taken insufficient account of his mitigation.
  22. The single judge refused leave. In doing so he observed that there might be some debate about the application of the section 18 Guideline but that it would nonetheless be persuasive. He then said that whatever the position in that respect, no complaint could be made of the overall sentence in terms of reflecting the overall criminality, including the Class A drug dealing, the appallingly high speed at which the applicant had driven whilst intoxicated, the injuries to other road users, and the fact that the driving continued for some time after the applicant knew a pedestrian had been hit and was being dragged under the vehicle.
  23. The applicant now renews his application for leave.
  24. Discussion

  25. We do not consider that there is any substance in the submission made in relation to the section 18 Guideline. There was a clear finding by the sentencing judge which cannot be challenged that the applicant accelerated knowing Mr Plenderleith was under the car. Although not the basis of the offence charged, the intention to cause Mr Plenderleith grievous bodily harm was then self-evident. Even if that were not the case, there was both the intent to avoid arrest and, by the applicant's own admission in his grounds of appeal, gross recklessness as to the harm to Mr Plenderleith once he had been hit. Aggregating those two matters there can be no sensible submission that the application of the Guideline was wrong in principle.
  26. There were further a number of aggravating features, as the Recorder observed, and the credit he gave for mitigation was, in our judgment, more than adequate.
  27. Had the Recorder approached the matter differently, he could have taken a lesser notional sentence for the section 18 offence and uplifted that sentence to take account of the other offences and the overall criminality. This was an appalling, highly dangerous sequence of driving in a residential area with the risk to numerous members of the public, three of whom were injured, one very seriously, and it was entirely the product of drug dealing. Having regard to the overall criminality, as the single judge said, the sentence could not be regarded as manifestly excessive. As we have observed, the Recorder could have reached that sentence by a different route; it makes no difference.
  28. We grant any necessary application for an extension of time to make this renewed application but we refuse leave to appeal.
  29. We have, however, also to address other aspects of the sentencing.
  30. One of the offences committed to the Crown Court for sentencing was the offence of driving with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the specified limit. For this offence the Recorder disqualified the applicant from driving for 12 years. The Recorder said that he intended to disqualify the applicant for 4 years for this offence but he added an extension period of 8 years to reflect the period of imprisonment on the section 18 offence and therefore pronounced a period of disqualification of 12 years. The applicant had not, however, received a custodial sentence for this drug driving offence, so the provisions of section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not apply.
  31. The applicant had received a custodial sentence of 21 months for aggravated vehicle taking, for which a minimum period of 12 months' disqualification applies in the absence of special circumstances. No period of disqualification was pronounced for this offence. We would therefore impose a period of disqualification of 12 months for this offence, to run concurrently with the disqualification for the drug driving and an extension period of 10-and-a-half months.
  32. The applicant also received a custodial sentence for another offence (the section 18 offence) and under section 35B of the aforesaid Act we would therefore impose a further extension period of 7 years and 1-and-a-half months.
  33. The disqualification on the drug driving offence will therefore be for a period of 4 years, with no separate penalty to accompany the disqualification but with the extensions made up of two periods that we have identified, giving a total of 8 years.
  34. The appeal is therefore allowed and the sentence varied to that extent, but that makes no material difference to the period of disqualification.
  35. Therefore we give leave to appeal in that respect, allow the appeal and vary the sentence to that extent, but we repeat that it makes no material difference to the period for disqualification.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010