Ali, R v, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, October 03, 2018, [2018] EWCA Crim 2359

Resolution Date:October 03, 2018
Issuing Organization:Criminal Division
Actores:Ali, R v


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: [2018] EWCA Crim 2359



Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand



Tuesday 3rd October 2018

B e f o r e:





(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


- v -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr A T A Dallas appeared on behalf of the Appellant

Mr M Donkin appeared on behalf of the Crown

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N TTuesday 3rd October 2018

LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: I shall ask Mr Justice Goose to give the judgment of the court.


  1. On 30th January 2018, in the Crown Court at Bradford, before His Honour Judge Durham Hall QC, the appellant, Liaquat Ali, who is aged 31, pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On the 14th March 2018 he was sentenced by the same judge to five years and two months' imprisonment. He was disqualified from driving for a period of seven years and five months, pursuant to section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and he was ordered to pass an extended driving test before being permitted to drive again.

  2. The appellant appeals against his sentence with the leave of the single judge.

  3. On 20th September 2017, shortly before 2pm, the appellant was driving a recently acquired Volkswagen Golf on the A6181 Leeds Road in Bradford city centre. The road comprised a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph in the vicinity of public buildings, a shopping centre and the city's main railway station. There was traffic on the road and a number of pedestrians were in the vicinity.

  4. The appellant drove his motor vehicle, which contained a young passenger, at a speed that was later assessed to have been between 47.4mph and 49.3mph. The appellant's driving was recorded upon CCTV cameras which showed that in the moments leading up to the collision a delivery van was travelling in the same direction as the appellant's vehicle, but in the nearside of the dual carriageway. The weather was dry and the visibility was clear. At the same time the deceased, Kathleen Farnham, who was aged 54 and was accompanying her young son on the nearside pavement, was walking towards the Job Centre building adjacent to the road. The deceased's son had run ahead of his mother and had crossed the dual carriageway before her. The driver of the delivery van observed the deceased as he approached the pedestrian crossing which displayed green lights for the vehicular traffic. The driver of the van saw the deceased glance at the road before she began to run across it. The driver reduced his speed to between 25 and 28mph to permit the deceased to safely to cross the road.

  5. Travelling in the same direction as the delivery van was the appellant. He was travelling at a speed of up to 49.3mph, substantially in excess of the other vehicles. The appellant undertook one vehicle at speed, before sharply turning to the off-side to overtake the delivery van. One witness who was driving on the dual carriageway described the appellant's driving as "driving like an idiot". The CCTV footage showing the appellant's driving might be said to vindicate that observation. Before reaching the delivery van, the deceased was visible to the appellant, but once he commenced the overtaking manoeuvre she was not. Had the appellant been driving within the speed limit, the deceased would have safely crossed the road. In the circumstances of this case, it was the appellant's greatly excessive speed which caused the appellant's vehicle to collide with the deceased causing her death.

  6. The emergency...

To continue reading