R v Fharharde Uddin

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the Single Judge.

On 25 July 2025 in the Crown Court at Lewes, the applicant (now aged 29) was sentenced by His Honour Judge Gold KC to a total of 9 years' imprisonment for two offences arising out of a very serious incident two years earlier in Brighton. Following a row with his girlfriend after a night out, the applicant drove over her body in the road causing life-threatening injuries. Facing a charge initially of attempted murder, he then set about weaving a narrative that she had fallen and injured herself whilst drunk and any contact with his vehicle had been an unfortunate accident. Over a period of several months he phoned and texted his girlfriend hundreds of times from prison to ensure that she supported his story.

Ultimately the prosecution did not proceed with the count of attempted murder. He pleaded guilty instead to the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, contrary to section under 1A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, for which the sentence was 4½ years' imprisonment. For the offence of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, to which he also pleaded guilty, the sentence was 4½ years' imprisonment consecutive, making the total sentence of 9 years. The judge imposed a total driving disqualification of 4 ½ years, and disqualified the applicant until he passes an extended re-test.

The principal issues in the appeal are whether the sentence for perverting the course of justice was too high, and whether the two consecutive sentences failed to take account of the principle of totality, rendering the overall sentence manifestly excessive. We are grateful to Mr Parham, who appears on behalf of the applicantpro bono in the best traditions of the Bar, for his written and oral submissions.

The driving offence took place in the early hours of Sunday 19 August 2023. The applicant had been in a relationship with Shani Challis for a year or so. On the Saturday night leading up to the offence Ms Challis and the applicant went into Brighton sometime after 11.00 pm. They left a nightclub at around 4.40 am in the applicant's Mercedes car. CCTV footage tracked them driving in convoy with another vehicle up to Whitehawk Crescent in Brighton where apparently they stopped so Ms Challis could visit someone.

Just over an hour later at around 5.55 am a friend of Ms Challis received a voicemail message on her phone from Ms Challis. She could hear Ms Challis arguing with the applicant about a phone. Then she heard Ms Challis screaming. Ms Challis was asking somebody where the applicant was. She was speaking with the applicant who was angrily demanding that she give him back his phone. Ms Challis was heard walking away and shortly afterwards there was the sound of a car engine revving and then a collision. Ms Challis was crying out in pain. The applicant was saying he was sorry. Ms Challis said she could not breathe and wanted an ambulance to be called but the applicant repeatedly told her to get up because he wanted to get home and he believed the "feds" (the police) were coming. He continued trying to get Ms Challis to move even though it was obvious from the recording that she was in great pain and incapable of complying with that request.

The incident had been witnessed by a member of the public who happened to be walking in Whitehawk Crescent at the time. He saw a car travelling past him very fast. He could see a woman walking ahead on the grass verge and saw her go underneath the vehicle. Both the front and rear tyres travelled over her. He saw the driver get out of the car and start to try to drag the woman and put her into the car. He recorded a short video on his phone of what was happening.

Another eyewitness who lived nearby saw the aftermath. He saw the applicant in the road shouting at Ms Challis to "get in the fucking car". He and his partner went out and asked the applicant if he needed any help. He said he did not and that Ms Challis was "just drunk".

Another eyewitness who was driving home that morning initially thought that the applicant had stopped in the middle of the road because he had hit an animal. The witness saw the applicant trying to lift Ms Challis into then out of the passenger seat of the car. As he was doing so her clothing was falling down. He was certainly not moving her gently.

Ambulance crews quickly arrived on the scene. The applicant told them that Ms Challis had "just fallen off that path over there", pointing to a slightly sloping grass verge about a metre away. He told them she was drunk. When they asked if she had been hit by a car he said: "No, absolutely not". He got into the car and started to reverse back up the road. As he did so the police arrived and he was arrested after a struggle. He was unco-operative.

The ambulance crew noted that Ms Challis's clothing was marked with dirt consistent with her having been under a vehicle, not with staining from falling on the grass verge. She was largely unresponsive in the ambulance and exhibiting signs of extensive internal injury and low blood pressure. She had sustained life-threatening injuries. There was excessive internal bleeding with severe injuries to the liver, spleen and lung. Her spleen had to be removed. She underwent an operation to stabilise her at the Royal Sussex County Hospital and was then transported to King's College Hospital in London for specialist care. She required 32 units of blood and 12 units of blood products. She remained in a very serious condition, with a traumatic injury to the liver, and with blood and air present in her chest spaces. She had a fractured spine, a number of rib fractures on her right side, and fractures to her pelvis. She was placed on life support. She remained in a medical coma whilst her injuries started to heal. It was noted that her injuries were all consistent with crushing injuries from being run over by a vehicle. They were inconsistent with her having been in a standing position. The conclusion was that she must have been near to the ground at the time they were sustained. Eventually Ms Challis recovered sufficiently to be woken from the coma. She remained in hospital for three months.

The applicant had been interviewed at the police station following his arrest. He said that when he and Ms Challis had returned to the Whitehawk Crescent area she had called at an address briefly and then walked off, looking in her handbag for the applicant's phone. He had followed her in the car and as she was walking on the grass verge she had suddenly turned and fallen over. He did not think the car had made contact with her. He was simply trying to help her at the roadside. In a further interview he said there was no chance that she had gone underneath the car. He said he had stopped the car instantly when she had fallen over.

A road traffic collision investigation took place. Physical evidence recovered from the scene demonstrated that Ms Challis had been struck on the roadway close to the grass verge. Items of her jewellery and a broken fingernail were recovered from the grass. There was damage to the applicant's vehicle consistent with someone having passed beneath it. Ms Challis’s DNA was found on a number of parts of the car consistent with her having passed beneath the passenger side of the vehicle; the marks did not continue onto the front bumper or bonnet, leading to the conclusion that she was not upright at the time of the collision.

The applicant was charged with attempted murder and with offences of assault on two police officers who had attended the scene. On 22 August 2023, within days of the offence, the applicant appeared before the Magistrates' Court and was sent to the Crown Court for trial on the charge of attempted murder. The first hearing in the Crown Court was 19 September 2023.

It was around that date that Ms Challis had eventually recovered sufficiently to be able to speak to the police. However, it was already clear that the applicant had started contacting Ms Challis from prison where he had been remanded. She was still in hospital. Ms Challis had apparently been contacted by a cousin of the applicant who told her the applicant had not meant to do it. She told the police about this but initially queried why she would have run in front of the vehicle. Soon after this a letter was found which the applicant had written from prison to Ms Challis, dated 18 September. In it he impressed upon her the importance of saying "nothing about nothing" and expressed his love for her.

The trial date for the charge of attempted murder was fixed for 18 March 2024. At the next hearing on 10 November 2023 the applicant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to attempted murder.

From September 2023 onwards the applicant embarked on a determined course of conduct to persuade Ms Challis to support his false account that he had not run over her and caused her serious injuries in that way. This lasted for a period of some 6 months. In the end Ms Challis herself was arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, having gone along with the applicant's persuading. During this period the applicant made phone calls to her from prison on more than 1,300 occasions and sent her some 4,400 messages. Ms Challis reciprocated and remained in constant touch with the applicant. The overall effect was that the account she gave to the police changed significantly and she gradually withdrew her support for any prosecution.

In her first ABE video recorded interview on 28 September 2023, she maintained that she could not really remember what had happened and thought she might have run out between cars and the applicant might not have seen her. Within days she contacted the police saying she wanted to "get rid" of that interview. She said that now she did not believe that what had happened was the applicant's fault. By the end of November 2023 she was saying she had run out into the road while she was drunk and knew it was not the applicant's fault. By the end of December 2023 she was clear that what had happened was an accident and asked for another ABE interview. That took place on 9 January 2024. She gave a different version of events again, saying now that she ran out into the road trying to get into the vehicle and the applicant had deliberately swerved to avoid hitting her.

To give the flavour of the text messages exchanged between Ms Challis and the applicant, on 27 January she sent him a text saying that she had told the officer in the case that it was she who was at fault for what had occurred. The applicant replied immediately: "Tell him as well that you're going to speak to the judge yourself because you feel like they're hiding things from the judge and making me look bad." Later that day Ms Challis did contact the officer in the case in almost exactly those terms. It was plain that the applicant was seeking to manipulate the proceedings and encouraging her to do so as well.

In March 2024 Ms Challis was arrested herself on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. In the event she was not prosecuted. Her phone was seized. It was apparent that she had been deleting contacts with the applicant although a few messages remained. The police also recovered a six-page letter which she had written, but not sent, to the resident judge at Lewes Crown Court setting out a different version of events. She now said she had run towards the applicant's car and tripped as she approached it because her shoe had broken; the applicant had knocked her over and what happened was an accident.

The applicant was arrested for perverting the course of justice in April 2024. He gave a prepared statement denying the offence and then a "no comment" interview. On 6 December 2024 the applicant eventually pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving and to perverting the course of justice. He put forward a basis of plea to the effect that he drove off angrily and at some speed following a short dispute with Ms Challis; she fell as he was driving in her direction; the manner of his driving combined with her proximity at the time represented significant disregard for her safety.

The applicant had one previous court appearance but it was for a very serious offence indeed. In October 2015, aged just 18, he received an extended sentence of detention in a young offender institution for two offences of section 18 wounding with intent. The custodial term was 6 years with an extension period of 3 years. They were joint offences with two others. They boarded a bus, approached one of the passengers and stabbed him six times, and then another passenger was stabbed ten times. The applicant was on licence from that sentence at the time the present offences were committed.

There was a pre-sentence report. In his interview with the probation officer the applicant tried to minimise his actions and in his account of the incident contradicted himself frequently. He admitted that in view of the alcohol he had consumed at the club he should not have been driving at all. There had been an argument. He admitted he was driving at 30 miles per hour. He denied driving at Ms Challis deliberately. He did not take any responsibility for encouraging her to give the accounts to the police that she did. He demonstrated no real remorse in interview. The assessment of the report was that the applicant posed a high risk of serious harm to members of the public, specifically rival males, and a risk of serious harm to other road users and pedestrians.

There was also a psychological report because of the concern that the applicant's anti-social personality traits might be connected with two significant head injuries he had sustained as a teenager. However, the conclusion of the report was that his anti-social behaviour had resulted from his early and chronic exposure to violence and it was unlikely that the head injuries he had received as a teenager had resulted in any brain injury that significantly affected his behaviour.

The judge said the applicant had driven his motor vehicle in a grossly dangerous manner and had caused grave injuries to his girlfriend after they had an argument. It was clear that the applicant had run over her causing very serious life-endangering injuries. The applicant's priority had been to avoid police involvement by trying to put her unconscious body back into the car so he could drive away. The judge said that if the applicant had succeeded in doing that Ms Challis may very well have died. The applicant was concerned only for his own welfare and avoiding detection by the police.

The judge said that the applicant had embarked on a campaign to ensure that Ms Challis would do her utmost to get him out of trouble. The judge described the applicant as a highly dangerous individual having regard to the pre-sentence report and the psychological report. He referred to the applicant's very serious previous conviction and the fact that these offences were committed on licence.

Turning to the relevant Sentencing Council guideline, the judge was satisfied that for the driving offence the maximum sentence of 5 years’ custody would have been appropriate after a trial, bearing in mind the very serious injury and the applicant’s complete disregard for Ms Challis's welfare at the scene and the other aggravating factors. There would be credit of 10 per cent for the late guilty plea reducing the sentence to 4½ years.

The judge found that the offence of perverting the course of justice also fell within the highest categories of harm and culpability under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline. There was level A high culpability because the offence involved conduct over a sustained period of time and the underlying offence was very serious. There was category 1 greater harm because there was a serious impact on the administration of justice and a substantial delay had been caused to the matter being dealt with. The guideline starting point for category 1A was 4 years with a range up to 7 years. The judge went up to 6 years which he reduced by 25 per cent for the applicant's guilty plea. The sentence for that offence would therefore also be 4½ years' imprisonment and the sentence would be consecutive.

Immediately after pronouncing sentence the judge asked both counsel whether there was anything he had overlooked from the prosecution point of view or from the defence point of view. Defence counsel pointed out that the judge had not explicitly addressed the question of totality, to which the judge replied:

The applicant initially lodged his own grounds of appeal but these apparently overlapped with grounds lodged by defence counsel, Mr Parham. There is no challenge to the sentence for the driving offence even though it represented the maximum permitted by statute. It is submitted, however, that for the offence of perverting the course of justice the judge was wrong to impose a sentence as high as 6 years before credit for plea and that no reduction was given in the overall sentence of 9 years to reflect the principle of totality.

It is submitted in writing in the grounds of appeal, and Mr Parham developed this point in front of us, that the appropriate starting point for perverting the course of justice ought to have been towards the bottom of the range for category 1A. That range is 2 years to 7 years. He submits the judge's inflation of the starting point to 6 years was unjustified and disproportionate to the seriousness of the underlying driving offence. It is accepted that there was level A culpability but Mr Parham submits that the conduct was unsophisticated, which is a culpability C factor, and the underlying driving offences was not of the utmost seriousness.

As to category 1 harm and the impact on the administration of justice it was submitted in the grounds in writing that the applicant's communications with Ms Challis did not have the effect of substantially changing her account from one which clearly supported the prosecution to one which clearly did not. She was a willing participant and a partner in the acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. Mr Parham went further in his oral submissions and said that in a sense, and to an extent, Ms Challis even took the lead by inventing other fake allegations, as it was put, which were designed to explain why she came to be in such an agitated state after having the row and had simply fallen and been run over accidentally. It is said that the trial for attempted murder could have proceeded in March 2024 without waiting for the investigation of the allegation of perverting the course of justice to be completed.

It is submitted that there was no justification for the increase of 2 years from the guideline starting point of 4 years. There were no aggravating factors which were so significant as to justify such an uplift. It is pointed out that the sentence on the perverting count (before credit for plea) was longer than the maximum sentence for the driving offence, which was not a proper reflection, it is submitted, of the gravity of the respective offending.

Developing that submission in writing in the grounds of appeal, Mr Parham had submitted that the sentence for perverting should have borne some reasonable relationship of proportionality with the gravity of the principal offending, that is the driving offence. Mr Parham drew our attention to R v Solarksa [2022] EWCA Crim 1732, where this Court said at [26] that it was relevant to consider whether the sentence for perverting was disproportionate to the seriousness of the underlying offending. Mr Parham accepts that that case was decided before the current Sentencing Council guideline for perverting the course of justice came into force (on 1 October 2023), but he submits that the same principle of proportionality is implicit in the culpability factors which require the court to consider the seriousness of the underlying offence.

Finally, Mr Parham submits the judge was wrong to make no explicit reduction for totality and to explain in his sentencing remarks why he had not done so. He accepts that consecutive sentences were justified and appropriate as a matter of principle, but he submits that there should have been a final reduction for totality.

We have considered all these submissions carefully but we are unable to accept them. This offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving undoubtedly merited the imposition of the maximum sentence permitted by statute, 5 years, before credit for plea. That sentence is rightly not challenged.

In assessing the culpability of the applicant for the offence of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice, it is important to note that the charge which the applicant was then facing was attempted murder, carrying life imprisonment. Only later, and well into the lengthy period of that course of conduct, did the prosecution agree not to proceed with that count and instead accept a plea to causing serious injury by dangerous driving. We think that any assessment of proportionality must, therefore, primarily be between the seriousness of the conduct in perverting the course of justice and the offence of attempted murder which he originally faced, rather than simply the driving offence to which in the end he pleaded guilty.

For the reasons the judge explained, the attempt to pervert the course of justice was very serious indeed. There were two level A high culpability factors: the sustained period over which the conduct continued, and the seriousness of the underlying offence, attempted murder and later dangerous driving causing life-threatening injuries. We are also quite satisfied that the judge was correct to find the two category 1 harm factors established, serious impact on the administration of justice and substantial delay caused to the course of justice. We reject the suggestion that the applicant's conduct was in some way less serious because Ms Challis went along with it too. If anything, we think it was an aggravating factor that she was persuaded to back up his story, leading in the end to her own arrest.

The starting point for category 1A was 4 years with a range of up to 7 years. The guideline states in terms that the presence of multiple factors of culpability or harm may justify an increase from the starting point before consideration of aggravating factors. Here there were multiple factors of both culpability and harm. There was also the very serious aggravating factor of the applicant's previous extended sentence for grave offences of wounding with intent for which he had received an extended sentence. It was a further serious aggravating factor that the current offences were committed whilst on licence from that sentence.

As for totality, it is conceded that consecutive sentences were appropriate. The judge indicated at the conclusion of his sentencing remarks that he had taken account of totality. It is well established that a judge need not be any more explicit than that in demonstrating that totality has been considered: see R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719; [2021] 2 Cr App R (S) 15, at [34].

The sole question for us is whether, standing back, the total sentence of 9 years' imprisonment for the overall criminality of this offending was just and proportionate. We are quite satisfied that it was. It is not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive or in any way wrong in principle.

For all these reasons the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.