“Decision: Applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence on Counts 1 and 3 refused. Count 2 referred to the Full Court for the limited reasons identified by the Prosecution and set out at [18] - [19] below. Reasons: I have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal against sentence. Extension of time in relation to Count 1 Applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence on Counts 1 and 3 refused. Count 2 referred to the Full Court for the limited reasons identified by the Prosecution and set out at [18] - [19] below. I have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal against sentence. Extension of time in relation to Count 1 1. You seek a lengthy extension of time in which to appeal the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment imposed on Count 1 (dangerous driving). The extension you seek is 1 year and 10 months, when the time limit for appealing is 28 days. Your reasons for the delay relate primarily to your mental health and that of your mother. 13. You were represented by counsel during your trial and sentencing and they will have advised you of the strict time limit for appealing. Information about how to appeal to this Court is widely available. 14. I accept that you may have found the impact of imprisonment stressful. However, I have seen no medical evidence to support the suggestion that you had a ‘complete mental breakdown’ as you describe. There is nothing, for example, to indicate that you have received mental health treatment as an in- patient while in custody. 15. It is clear that your mother has poor mental health, but this appears to be a long-standing issue. It is far from clear that it was your sentence of imprisonment that led to her taking an overdose: this appears to have happened in 2023, when you were sentenced in May 2022. I note that the letter from her GP refers to one such incident, not the multiple incidents you refer to. I appreciate that you will have been concerned about your mother’s mental health while you are in prison, but she has support from other family members, her GP and religious community at the Gurdwara. 16. For these reasons I do not consider your reasons for seeking such a long extension of time to be persuasive. In any event there would be no purpose in extending time because I do not consider that your grounds of appeal are reasonably arguable, for the reasons set out below. i. Leave to appeal in relation to Count 1 17. You assert that the Judge wrongly categorised the offence of dangerous driving under Count 1 as within Level 1 within the Sentencing Council guideline. You rightly identify that Level 1 should be reserved for the most serious offences, encompassing driving with a deliberate decision to ignore or flagrant disregard for the rules of the road; and an apparent disregard for the dangers caused to others. 18. However, that was an entirely justified categorisation of your conduct. You were driving at a grossly excessive speed, and you deliberately drove over the victim. There were a significant number of factors that aggravated your offending further. The Judge was also correct to treat the offending under Count 2 (dangerous driving) as aggravating that under Count 1 (causing death by dangerous driving). The nature of your offending and the various aggravating factors were set out in detail by the Judge when sentencing you and were summarised at pages 10G-12D of the transcribed Sentencing Remarks. They are also set out in some detail in the Respondent’s Notice. 19. You were represented by experienced counsel at the time of sentencing. Counsel provided the judge with detailed written and oral mitigation on your behalf. The Judge was made aware of the bereavements you had suffered and your mothers’ poor mental health... Moreover...the Judge had heard you give evidence on three occasions and so was well aware of the dynamics of your family. 20. Had there been evidence that you were the primary carer for your mother at the time of sentencing this would have been raised. The prosecution indicate that it was not. Indeed, I note that none of the character references from your sisters, cousin and family friends, suggested that you were the primary carer for your mother. The letters from your mother’s GP and Gurdwara from May and August 2024 suggesting that you were her primary carer before going into prison constitute fresh evidence which is not generally admissible on appeal. You have provided no reasons why this evidence was not placed before the Judge sentencing you, when it appears that it could have been. 21. You contend that the offence was a terrible accident and not committed intentionally. That was not consistent with the conclusion of the jury who found you guilty, albeit that the Judge may well have accepted your counsel’s submission that the offence was not intentional in the sense of being pre-planned... 22. As explained at [42] of the Respondent’s Notice, there was never any suggestion at trial that the victim was intoxicated. 23. Your counsel did not identify remorse as a mitigating factor and the Judge was entitled to conclude that you did not show any, albeit that the Judge was at pains to emphasise that the lack of remorse was not being used as an aggravating factor... 24. For these reasons the Judge was fully justified in finding that your mitigation should not reduce the original 12-year sentence that had been identified. 25. For all these reasons I refuse to extend time to appeal the sentence imposed on Count 1 and refuse leave to do so. Count 3 26. It does not appear that you seek to appeal the consecutive sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed on Count 3 (perverting the course of justice). 27. However, for the avoidance of doubt I consider that this sentence was entirely appropriate for the reasons summarised...in the Respondent’s Notice and 12E-13E of the Sentencing Remarks. 28. Accordingly, to the extent that you seek to appeal this sentence, I refuse to extend time for the same reasons as are given above in relation to Count 1 and refuse leave.”