[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Hussain, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 467 (22 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/467.html Cite as: [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 84, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 84, [2008] EWCA Crim 467

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		22 February 2008

Friday 22 February 2008

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I will ask Mr Justice Maddison to give the judgment of the court.

MR JUSTICE MADDISON:

1. On 29 November 2007, at the Crown Court at Aylesbury, the appellant, Mujid Hussain, was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment. He was also disqualified from driving for three years, subject to taking an extended retest. He appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge.
2. The circumstances are that at about 10.30am on 29 October 2006 police officers were called to the scene of a road traffic accident which had occurred at a road junction in Milton Keynes. The appellant, who was a private hire driver, had been conveying two passengers to their destination in his car. He approached a road junction at which he was on the minor road. His progress was governed by "Give Way" signs. He slowed at these signs, but then drove into the junction, apparently intending to turn right. As he did so, a motorcyclist was driving down the main road, approaching from the appellant's right. The result was that the motor cyclist struck the appellant's car. The 24 year old rider of the motorcycle suffered extreme injuries as a result of his hitting the roadway. He was pronounced dead at the scene. The passengers in the appellant's car were also injured to some extent. They and some of the eyewitnesses said that they had seen the motorcycle travelling at speed as the appellant began to turn into the main road. At the time of the accident the road was dry and the visibility and the weather were good.
3. A police accident investigation officer concluded that the motor-cycle was probably travelling at less than 74mph, but its precise speed could not be calculated accurately. The speed limit at the section of road concerned was one of 60mph. It is right to add that the accident investigation officer also stated that the motorcycle should have been visible to the appellant as he emerged from the minor road.
4. The appellant is now 32 years of age. He was of previous good character. There was no pre-sentence report before the court. The judge had a moving family impact statement from the parents of the deceased, which made clear the devastating effect which the death of their son had had on their lives. This court is, of course, conscious of the grief which the family must inevitably have suffered. No sentence that any court can pass can begin to compensate for such grief.
5. Passing sentence, the learned judge described what had happened as having been a momentary act of dangerousness on the appellant's part. He failed to see the motorcyclist in circumstances where he had pulled out of the junction apparently to get ahead of traffic coming from his left. The learned judge took account of all the matters advanced in mitigation on behalf of the appellant who did not, however, have the mitigation of a plea of guilty. The judge stated that there were none of the "traditional aggravating features" present using guidance from the Court of Appeal in such cases. He concluded:

"Applying the criteria, as I understand the criteria to be, the sentence is 30 months' imprisonment. You will be disqualified from driving for three years and when you are free to drive you must take the extended driving test."

6. The appeal against the sentence is lodged on the basis, first, that the learned judge failed in the event to have regard to guidance from this court as to the sort of sentence appropriate in such a case. Moreover, it is submitted that in the circumstances of the appellant the disqualification was too long.
7. The decisions of this court in R v Cooksley and Others [2003] 2 Cr App R 18, [2003] EWCA Crim 996, as recently updated in R v Richardson [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 36, [2006] EWCA Crim 3186, provide guidance for sentencers in cases such as this. Numerous potential matters of aggravation are indeed identified in these cases. In our judgment the judge was correct in saying that none applied in this case. The previous decisions of this court go on to suggest that, in the absence of any aggravating features, a starting point of between 12 and 24 months' imprisonment in a case involving an adult convicted after a trial is appropriate.
8. It follows that the sentence of 30 months' imprisonment passed by the learned judge was outside the bracket identified by this court. We have had regard to this bracket. We take the view that this was indeed no more than a case of momentary inattention and dangerousness on the part of a man otherwise previously of unblemished character. In our judgment the appropriate sentence of imprisonment is one of 15 months.
9. We turn briefly to consider the length of the disqualification. Having regard to the appellant's unblemished record to which we have referred, and to the fact that he has earned his living from driving, we agree that the disqualification of three years was longer than it should have been. The disqualification will be reduced to one of two years, subject to the qualification that, at the expiry of that period, the appellant must first pass an extended retest.
10. To that extent, therefore, the appeal is allowed.