R v Zac Newman

On 1 July 2024, following his trial in the Crown Court at Derby, the applicant was convicted of murder (count 1), wounding with intent (count 2) and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (count 3).

On 5 July he was sentenced on count 1 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years less the 202 days he had served on remand. He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on count 2; and 2 years' imprisonment on count 3, both to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. The offences placed him in breach of a suspended sentence order of 21 months suspended for 2 years, imposed in March 2022 for two offences of Class A drugs supply and one of supplying a drug of Class B. The suspended sentence was activated in full and ordered to run concurrently with the other sentences imposed.

The applicant applies for an extension of 199 days within which to renew his application for leave to appeal sentence following refusal by the single judge. Concerning the application for the extension of time, the applicant says that he filled in the form and sent it in good time and was unaware that it had not been received.

Through the afternoon and evening of 15 December into the early hours of 16 December 2023 the applicant drank a significant quantity of alcohol in various public houses in Littleover, Derby. It was the prosecution case, at least in opening, that he, fuelled by alcohol and drugs, became progressively angry and confrontational with others through that time. It was said he had confronted two different men in toilets of the pubs he had been in and slapped one of them when he questioned his behaviour, needing to be pulled away. Later it was said he confronted another man named Quinn Raeside who had been removed from the dance floor of another pub following inappropriate behaviour towards a young woman known to the applicant. A brief scuffle ensued, after which Mr Raeside left the pub and stood with others on the pedestrianised area of the Market Square. The applicant followed Mr Raeside and punched him. A fight involving him and others then ensued. The deceased, Samuel Wilson, together with his friends broke up the disorder and guided the applicant away.

The applicant went across the car park to where his works van was parked and got into it despite attempts by another to dissuade him. He drove it out of the car park and on to the pedestrianised area, ploughing into a group of people who could do nothing to avoid being hit. Samuel Wilson was knocked to the floor by the van and became trapped beneath it. Sean Cardwell had also been knocked to the floor by the van and sustained a cut to his head (count 2). Daniel Rowley was knocked to the floor, causing bruising to his ankle (count 3). The van sped up after impact and drove along a nearby street, where Samuel Wilson's body was dislodged.

The applicant was later arrested at home. In a prepared statement he denied that he had deliberately collided with the victims.

Impact statements were before the court in which relatives of Samuel Wilson and his partner spoke in moving terms of their devastating loss. Sean Cardwell also spoke of the impact on him of his injuries and the loss of his friend.

The applicant was aged 27 years at sentence. He had two convictions for five offences, spanning 2016 to 2022. The relevant convictions included one offence against the person and one public order offence.

In careful and considered sentencing remarks, the judge found that when the applicant came out of the pub, he was looking for trouble. When the fight was broken up, he would not let things go. The judge accepted that the applicant's intention initially that evening was to park his van, leave it there and walk home. However, he changed his mind and deliberately chose to drive at those on Market Place, using his van as a weapon to do so. In those circumstances he fell to be sentenced as having taken a weapon to the scene, with a starting point for the minimum term under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 of 25 years' imprisonment. The fact that he was in breach of a suspended sentence order was an aggravating factor, as was the fact that there were two further victims, and that the applicant was under the influence of drink and drugs.

The judge found mitigating factors in the fact there was no intent to kill, premeditation was short lived, in his relatively young age and the impact of the applicant's incarceration on his young daughter. The judge accepted that the applicant had "a good and reasonable side".

The applicant contends that the length of the minimum term imposed in this case was manifestly excessive.

In written submissions the applicant contended that the judge erred in finding that the applicant's works van could properly be described as a weapon taken to the scene. That submission has not been pursued in oral argument today following the judgment of this court in R v Deeprose [2024] EWCA Crim 1431 which was determined four months after the sentence in the instant case. The applicant now accepts that the starting point for the minimum term was properly one of 25 years.

However, Mr Bradley KC pursues his second ground of appeal, which is that the "unusual factual matrix of this case", as he describes it, and the mitigation available warranted a more significant reduction to the minimum term than was applied by the judge.

In terms of the factual matrix, he submits that the evidence at the end of the case was different to that opened by the prosecution, in that the original assertion that he had become progressively angry through the afternoon and evening of the killing was no longer sustainable.

He further submits that the offending was not significantly premeditated, being only for a couple of minutes after the last fight outside the pub.

Thirdly, Mr Bradley relies on the distinction between this case and other cases where vehicles were used as a weapon. In those other cases he points out that the courts were dealing with prolonged and premeditated acts of driving, with the offenders undertaking a search for the victims and driving at considerable speed before hitting them. That, he submits, is not this case. The premeditation was for a short period; the van was travelling at 6-8 mph; and the applicant did not know at the time that he sped up that the deceased was caught beneath his van.

In refusing leave to appeal sentence, the single judge said that:

“Beckford has (since the Judge passed sentence in this case) been considered in Deeprose .... The Judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant took the vehicle to the scene (i.e., drove it from Pimlico Car Park to Market Place) as a weapon (irrespective of the fact that, earlier in the evening, when the applicant initially left home, he had not intended to use it as [such]). … It was also a particularly dangerous weapon.

The appropriate starting point for the minimum term was therefore 25 years.

The aggravating features were the applicant’s intoxication and that a group were targeted and others were injured. The available mitigation was slender. It is not arguable that the minimum term of 24 years was manifestly excessive.”

We have considered the matter afresh and find ourselves in complete agreement with the single judge for the reasons he gave. The judge was aware of the factual matrix and how the evidence played out at trial. What happened in other cases which are not guideline cases is of little assistance. In this case the van was used as a weapon. There was more than one victim. The applicant may not have known when he sped up that the deceased was trapped under his vehicle, but he ran the significant risk that that would have been the case. The offence was clearly premeditated.

For these reasons we find that the minimum term of 24 years was far from arguably manifestly excessive. We therefore do not grant the extension of time sought as to do so would serve no useful purpose. The applications are refused.