R v Callum McCann

This appeal, which is brought with the leave of the Single Judge, arises out of two sets of offences. We shall give further detail below but in briefest outline, at various stages in the proceedings the appellant pleaded guilty to three sets of offences as follows. First, on 5 May 2025 the appellant drove dangerously and by driving deliberately at someone walking along the pavement was guilty of an offence of affray. He was at the time disqualified from driving and had no insurance. We shall refer to these as "the 5 May offences".

On 7 May 2025 he again drove dangerously when trying to evade the police. Once again, he deliberately drove onto the pavement and once again he was driving whilst disqualified and without insurance. We shall refer to these as "the 7 May offences".

While the police were investigating 5 and 7 May offences the appellant was found to be in possession of a driving licence which had been stolen from its rightful owner in 2022. The appellant pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods as a result of his possession of the licence.

There has been some confusion about how these various offences ended up in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook but on 22 December 2025, having pleaded guilty to all the offences, the appellant was sentenced by Mr Recorder Barnett as follows: on count 2 of the indictment, which was the 5 May dangerous driving, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment concurrent; on count 3, which was the driving while disqualified on 5 May, no separate penalty was imposed. On count 4, which was the dangerous driving on 7 May, 6 months' imprisonment consecutive was imposed. On count 5, which was driving whilst disqualified on 7 May, no separate penalty was imposed. On count 6, which was the charge of handling stolen goods, he was sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment concurrent and on count 7, the count of affray, he was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.

There were also two offences which had been committed under section 51(11) of the Crime and Disorder Act. They were both offences, one on 5 and one on 7 May, of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance. The Recorder imposed no separate penalty. The total sentence was therefore 26 months' imprisonment. The appellant was also disqualified from driving for 3 years with an extension period of 4 months and he was ordered to take an extended re-test.

Around 7.30 pm on 5 May 2025 Ms Gracie Sabine was walking along Market Road in Islington when she heard the appellant shouting towards her: "Where's Amber? Where's Amber?" The appellant was referring to his ex-girlfriend, Amber Lindell, who was a friend of Ms Sabine's. The appellant was driving a Mercedes Coupe motor vehicle. His current partner was in the front passenger seat. Ms Sabine was concerned for her safety. She responded: "You all right?" before continuing to walk along the pavement. The appellant turned his vehicle around, mounted the pavement and drove deliberately towards Ms Sabine before speeding away along Market Road. Ms Sabine had Snapchat open on her mobile phone and recorded some of the incident. On the recording Ms Sabine can be heard asking the appellant why he was following her. We have seen the recording, which graphically illustrates the course and speed of the Mercedes as it mounted the pavement very close to Ms Sabine and heading in her direction. The incident was witnessed by a member of the public who called 999. Ms Sabine also contacted the police who attended her home and took a statement. While the officers were there, the appellant sent Ms Sabine a direct message via Instagram asking that she "send the video" with an accompanying laughing face emoji.

The following day, 6 May 2025, the appellant called 101 to ask whether he was wanted for an offence. Officers attended his home later that day and spoke with his legal guardian who showed them a text conversation he had with the appellant on 5 May. In the messages the appellant admitted mounting the pavement to scare Ms Sabine but said he did not cause her any injuries.

In the early hours of 7 May the appellant was seen driving a Mercedes in Holloway Road. PC Serban activated his blue lights and signalled for the appellant to stop. PC Serban pulled over and rolled down his window. The appellant asked the officer if everything was all right. PC Serban told the appellant to turn off his engine. The appellant then mounted the left side of the pavement in an attempt to squeeze by a parked car and a building. He then reversed and mounted the pavement again before speeding away along Holloway Road. At the time of both sets of offences the appellant was disqualified from driving and had no insurance.

He was arrested at his home address on 8 May 2025. On his person was a wallet which contained a driving licence in the name of "Tallulah Hastings". A crime report had been issued in 2022 after Tallulah Hastings' wallet and driving licence were stolen.

The appellant had bought the car he was driving just four days before knowing full well that he was disqualified and not allowed to drive it. He also obviously knew that he was driving without insurance. At one point the appellant was charged with an offence of attempting to cause Ms Sabine grievous bodily harm with intent. Later, that charge was dropped and the offence of affray was preferred to which the appellant was prepared to and did plead guilty at the first opportunity.

For present purposes it is sufficient to record that the appellant was born on 4 August 2004. He was therefore aged 20 when he committed these offences. At the time of his conviction on counts 2 to 6 he was still aged 20. At the time of his conviction on count 7 he was aged 21. The significance of this chronology is that a custodial sentence on counts 2, 4 and 6 would be a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, whereas a custodial sentence on count 7 will be a sentence of imprisonment. We return to this at the end of the judgment.

The Recorder had the benefit of a pre-sentence report. He also had the benefit of extensive character evidence, all of which attested to a motivated young man struggling to shake off the burdens of an extremely traumatic and abusive childhood that had been adversely affected by domestic violence and exploitation. We have read with close attention (a) a letter from the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust dated 13 June 2025; (b) a letter from Dr Simon Ashworth (the appellant's adoptive parent) dated 15 December 2025, which provides detailed information about the appellant's challenging youth and upbringing; (c) a supporting statement from the Adolescent Multi-Agency Specialist Service dated 3 March 2022 describing their work with the appellant over the previous 9 months. They describe the appellant then as being "a vulnerable adolescent who can best be supported through patient, consistent, compassionate and boundaried care givers" and (d) a letter from Islington Targeted Youth Support Service dated 8 December 2025 which speaks of the appellant consistently "demonstrating strong communication, teamwork and leadership skills along with professionalism and reliability." We do not set those materials out in detail here, but we have taken them fully into account. We have also seen a recent prison report which evidences good behaviour while in custody.

The appellant had three convictions for nine offences ranging from 13 April 2021 to 25 April 2024. His relevant convictions included offences of battery in 2023, failing to provide a specimen for analysis in 2024, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence in 2024, failing to stop after an incident in 2024 and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance, that too being in 2024.

The Recorder had, and we too have read, a victim impact statement which Ms Sabine made a month after 5 May incident. She spoke of her fear when the incident occurred, made worse by it having taken place in broad daylight close to her home. She spoke of being shaken up and constantly feeling anxious and scared and struggling to sleep.

The prosecution submitted that the appellant was entitled to full credit in relation to 5 May offences including the affray and 25 per cent in relation to 7 May offences and the handling of stolen goods. In terms of guidelines the lead offence was the affray which the prosecution submitted should be treated as category A because of the intention to cause fear of very serious violence and category 1 due to the serious fear and distress that was caused to Ms Sabine. That would give a starting point of 2 years' custody with a category range from 1 year 6 months to 2 years 9 months' custody. There were no identified aggravating factors. The dangerous driving on 5 May was submitted to be culpability A due to the highly dangerous manoeuvre of mounting the pavement and harm teetering between category 1 and 2 in the light of minor injury, with the presence of the passenger in his car being an aggravating feature. The prosecution accepted the Recorder's suggestion that it would be appropriate to treat the affray as the lead offence and to treat the dangerous driving as an aggravating feature in respect of which a concurrent sentence should be imposed.

The dangerous driving on 7 May was submitted to be category A2 because it was committed in order to evade the police. That indicated a starting point of 36 weeks and a category range from a high-level community order to 18 months' custody. As before, there was the aggravating factor of driving whilst disqualified which was itself submitted to be category 2 in each case. The handling offence was submitted to be category C4 for which the starting point would be a fine.

The Recorder dealt first with the affray and 5 May dangerous driving. He took the 2-year starting point for the affray adopting the prosecution submission that it was category A1 offence because the appellant "used a weapon and caused real fear. There was no actual serious injury". He then said that he would impose no separate penalty for the dangerous driving but that the affray was aggravated by the fact that the appellant was "dangerously driving a vehicle... and was disqualified at the time." So the starting point had to be increased to 30 months. As the appellant was entitled to a full discount the Recorder reached the sentence of 20 months which he imposed. For 5 May he imposed a concurrent sentence of 12 months which he explained as meaning that there was no separate penalty for the dangerous driving apart from the obligatory disqualification. The meaning is clear even if the analysis is suspect.

Turning to 7 May offences, the Recorder identified as an aggravating factor that the appellant was trying to evade lawful arrest. On grounds of totality, he reduced the starting point for the dangerous driving to 9 months which he then reduced to 6 months for totality. That led him to impose the sentence of 6 months consecutive and the overall sentence of 26 months. He then said that even if the sentence had been at a level where it could be suspended, he would not have suspended it because "the driving in this case was so egregious and deliberate and then repeated by an attempt to evade detection by a police officer." He then dealt with the remaining offences, imposing no separate penalty for driving while disqualified and 1 month concurrent for the stolen licence.

There are three components to the appeal for which leave has been given.

The ultimate and only question for us is whether the sentence imposed was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

An aggregate sentence of 21 months is at least capable of being suspended. We have given close and anxious consideration to the submissions made by Ms Levett in relation to suspending the sentence. With a degree of regret, we have come to the conclusion that this offending, spread as it was over two separate days and two distinct episodes of dangerous driving, is so serious that we cannot in all consciousness suspend it. The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent that we have outlined.

Before we leave the case there are two other issues that need to be dealt with in the light of what we have said so far. First, although the Recorder referred to and the record referred to periods of "imprisonment", the effect of his age means that the sentences on counts 2, 4 and 6 should have been recorded as periods of "detention in a young offender institution" pursuant to section 262 of the Sentencing Act 2020. As he was aged 21 when convicted on count 7 (the offence of affray) the prohibition in section 227 no longer applied and a custodial sentence would have been imprisonment. Secondly, we have to deal with the position in relation to the case of Needham. So therefore, we finish this judgment here and we will now hear necessary submissions about what the impact on Needham will be.

My Lord, by virtue of receiving the sentence of 21 months, the defendant having a determinate sentence would fall to be released after 40 per cent of that sentence, which is a period of 8.4 months and he has in fact served now 9 months and 5 days in custody and therefore he should be eligible for immediate release and as such, in my submission, it would be appropriate to impose the intended disqualification of 3 years from today which will then not need any further adjustment because he will be subject to immediate release. Unless I can assist any further those would be my representations.

Very neat.

There is one thing though. I have read the sentencing remarks of Recorder Barnett, and he said that the appellant "may" have to take what he described as "re-test" once he is eligible to driving again. That is not correct, is it, section 36 required him to be disqualified until such time as he passes an extended driving test?

That is absolutely right.

The disqualification does need amending to make that clear, but we do agree that your proposal of not extending the 3 years or uplifting it in accordance with Needham is fair and just in the circumstances. So 3-year disqualification on counts 2 and 4 but disqualified until he passes an extended driving test.

I am grateful, my Lord. Thank you.

You will be aware that from the way that we framed the judgment that we have not allowed ourselves to be driven by estimated release dates, but we are conscious that this will have an effect.

I am just going to say something direct to Mr McCann which may sound rather strange coming from someone wearing a wig and a gown and all that sort of stuff. I hope you have understood from the judgment that I have given that we understand that you have had a terrible upbringing and severely traumatic time and upbringing. But it is also completely clear that a lot of people have invested huge amounts of time, effort and love to try to see you through and you need to realise, and I am sure Dr Ashworth will immediately understand this, there will come a time when you can no longer rely on your terrible upbringing as an excuse for bad behaviour. That time has probably now come. You have a choice, it will be difficult to stick to, but you have a choice whether to go the path that Dr Ashworth is trying to lead you on or whether you are going to end up on the scrapheap of the criminal justice system. It would be a complete tragedy for you and for them if you ever come back before the court again. That is all I am going to say. It is your choice, but there are people who are there who are determined to help you. So give them your help as they do that.