Alsaadoun, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 June 2022, the Defendant, aged 21 at the time, drove a BMW motor vehicle on the A40 road near Westbourne Park, London, with a front seat passenger who was his cousin, aged 20. At approximately 3:17 am, the Defendant's vehicle collided with a large goods vehicle. The BMW sustained extensive damage, especially on the passenger side, where the passenger was trapped and later died from severe head and multiple injuries. The Defendant was arrested at the scene, appearing shocked and upset.

Investigations revealed that the large goods vehicle was travelling at around 30 miles per hour, while the BMW accelerated from 46 mph to 90 mph within 38 seconds, with the speed at collision recorded at approximately 89.4 mph in a 30 mph speed limit zone. The Defendant was aged 23 when he pleaded guilty on 14 September 2023 to causing death by dangerous driving contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 19 December 2023, His Honour Judge Leonard KC sentenced the Defendant to eight years and four months' imprisonment, along with driving disqualification and an Extended Re-test order. The Defendant appealed the sentence with leave granted by the Single Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was excessively high within the category A range for causing death by dangerous driving.
2. Whether insufficient weight was given to the mitigating factors presented on behalf of the Defendant.
3. Whether the sentencing judge improperly double-counted the reason for the excessive speed as an aggravating factor.
4. Whether the mistaken explanation to the Defendant regarding the period to be served in custody justified a reduction in sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge adopted a sentence close to the maximum within category A, which was argued to be too high given the circumstances.
• The reason for the excessive speed ("showing off") was improperly double-counted as an aggravating factor, having already been accounted for in the offence categorisation.
• Insufficient weight was given to mitigating factors, including the Defendant's youth, remorse, psychological impact (post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety), and the delay in proceedings.
• The severe psychological effect on the Defendant should have significantly mitigated the sentence, notwithstanding the harm caused to the deceased and family.
• The Defendant was misinformed about the custodial period he would serve, expecting half rather than two-thirds, which caused additional hardship.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The sentencing judge correctly applied the Guideline for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and did not double-count the reason for excessive speed.
• Both the excessive speed and its reason were relevant aggravating factors in sentencing.
• The judge properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence that was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that the offence properly fell within category A of the Guideline for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, with a starting point of 12 years' custody and a range of 8 to 18 years. The Court considered the appellant's rapid acceleration and "showing off" behaviour as a significant aggravating factor, increasing the risk of harm to the public. The Court rejected the argument that this factor was double-counted, reasoning that while excessive speed was accounted for in the categorisation, the reason for that speed was a distinct aggravating factor.

The Court accepted that mitigating factors such as youth, remorse, psychological impact, and delay were considered by the sentencing judge. However, the Court held that the sentence imposed—12½ years before discount—was a result of a proper balancing exercise and was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

Regarding the mistaken advice given to the Defendant about the custodial period to be served, the Court held that this was a statutory matter beyond sentencing discretion and did not justify reducing the sentence. The period of misapprehension was relatively short and did not warrant alteration of the sentence.

Finally, the Court declined to comment on related post-sentence issues concerning the custodial period's effect on the driving disqualification, noting that such matters were outside the scope of the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.

The sentence of eight years and four months' imprisonment, along with the consequential orders of driving disqualification and Extended Re-test, was upheld. The Court found no error in principle or excessiveness in the sentencing judge's decision. No new precedent was established, and the orders made by the sentencing judge remain undisturbed.