[2025] EWCA Crim 1114

The facts, in outline, are these. On 20 November 2022, what was described as a "car meet" was arranged on social media. It seems that such meets had occurred locally before. The purpose of this particular meet was for drivers to cruise up and down roads in the Oldbury and Smethwick area to show off their cars (some of which had been modified) or to drive at speed or indeed, on occasion, to race. Numerous spectators would watch from the streets.

On the night in question the appellant drove a distinctive blue Nissan Skyline car which had a white bonnet. It had been seen in the area from around 2300 hours that night. There was CCTV footage of the car being parked in the forecourt of a Shell garage before driving off in convoy with other cars to the car meet. At that stage, the appellant had two adult sons in the car with him, he himself being the driver.

There had been some rain that night but the rain had eased off. The conditions at the time in question were said to be of good visibility although at the critical time the road had been described as damp. It may be observed that some 30 minutes before the ultimate collision, this being around 2300 hours, a witness, a man called Mr Hale, had noticed the back end of the appellant's vehicle "stepping out", that is to say swinging out as it went around a traffic island. This had caused Mr Hale to comment to a friend "that car looks lethal".

The appellant had in fact imported the Nissan from Japan some 18 months earlier. The car itself was well over 20 years old. It is said that the appellant and at least two of his sons had a shared interest in cars and mechanical engineering. At all events modification had been made by the family to the car. Those modifications included the addition of a 2.5 litre turbo engine, fresh injectors and pumps, the replacement of a radiator for a larger aluminium one and the addition of an intercooler to the engine. Further, the gearbox, brake pads and exhaust system had been changed. It is, however, to be emphasised that the vehicle was roadworthy and indeed had passed its MOT some 6 weeks earlier.

At a later stage following the meet the appellant drove the car on its own down one side of a dual carriageway. Having reached a roundabout he then drove the Nissan round it to come up on the other side of the carriageway. He was seen to accelerate causing the car tyres to spin. There was some available video footage of the incident and also eyewitness evidence. The crash itself was to occur some 200 metres away from the roundabout. It was in an area where there was a 40 mile per hour speed limit. The collision expert instructed subsequently was to determine that at this stage the appellant's vehicle had been travelling at average speeds of between 54 and 57 miles per hour. It was not disputed that the appellant, as he had come out of the roundabout, had deliberately very sharply accelerated so as to cause flames to come out of the exhaust. It was accepted that in doing this he was trying to show off to spectators who were watching. As he drove, the tyres lost grip with the road causing the car to steer towards the central reservation of the dual carriageway. The appellant tried to correct and overcorrected. The car then yawed clockwise and the vehicle was turned the other way, towards the footpath on the left of the road. The appellant then lost control of the vehicle completely and it crashed into the footpath and into pedestrians who were watching. It then went on to hit a brick wall causing part of it to collapse.

It seems that the police had in fact been trying to combat illegal street racing that evening and had issued numerous dispersal notices across the city although it was not suggested that the appellant himself knew that. In fact, police had been called to the area having received reports of street racing and, as it happened, arrived almost immediately after the collision had occurred. The carnage was then revealed. Sadly, two of those people had to be pronounced dead at the scene notwithstanding attempts to resuscitate them. So far as Ethan Kilburn was concerned he was taken to hospital. He had a left-side hip fracture and a fractured right forearm. He did not require surgery but had to use crutches for 3 months and undergo extensive physiotherapy. He has suffered flashbacks and inevitably there has been a profound psychological impact. Ebonie Parks was also taken to hospital. Her injuries included a collapsed right lung, fractures to various ribs, cuts to a kidney, a blocked artery, multiple fractures of her hip bone, a fracture to the lower left bone, a fracture to the left shoulder bone, a fracture to the thumb and fingers and lacerations to the skull and face area and elsewhere. She, following surgery, was in intensive care for 4 days and spent a further 17 days on a ward and thereafter had to use a wheelchair for some 6 weeks. She may never regain the full range of motion in at least one hand. Again, and unsurprisingly, the psychological impact has been profound. As it happened, the two sons of the appellant had shortly before the collision got out of the car and so the appellant at the critical time was on his own in the car. He himself was wholly unhurt in physical terms at the time of the crash. He was arrested at the scene and interviewed. When asked questions he was less than frank as to what had happened.