Park Royal car accident - driver charged

[Chris M]

The main charge is Causing death by dangerous driving. The sentencing guidelines for that offence are at

Causing death by dangerous driving – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

for offences committed on or after 28 June 2022 the maximum sentence is life imprisonment and the minimum disqualification is 5 years with compulsory extended re-test.

As this incident was in August that what will apply. However, there are a number of factors to consider which will impact the length of the sentence given (assuming they are not found innocent), Notably, if the defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity they will receive a 1/3rd discount from the final sentence. If they change their plea to guilty after the first opportunity but before the verdict they will also receive a discounted sentence, but the amount of the discount decrease as the trial progresses. The first opportunity cannot be before their first court appearance, which the Evening Standard report (link and quote below) to be 10 January, but sometimes there are multiple court appearances before a defendant is asked to enter a plea. As this is an offence that is triable on indictment only (i.e. in a crown court or higher) it is entirely possible that the defendant will not enter a plea at that hearing.

Assuming the defendant pleads or is found guilty, then the judge will need to first determine the nature (severity) of the offence. I am not a lawyer, but reading the guidelines at the above link, and based on what I remember reading in the media when the incident happened I suspect that this will be a level 1 (most serious) or level 2 offence. This puts the starting point in the range of 5 years to life imprisonment.

Next, aggravating factors must be considered. That the crash also caused a serious injury, and the driver failing to give a sample of blood are both aggravating factors, the location of the offence such that the vehicles ended up on the railway with all the potential consequences that entails will almost certainly be regarded as an aggravating factor too. These will push the sentence to the higher end of the range.

After that, mitigating factors will be considered. If I remember correctly the victim was a friend of the defendant, which is regarded as a mitigating factor. That they were also seriously injured (news reports from the time indicate he was still in a coma at least 2-3 days after the crash) might also be regarded as a mitigating factor.

Genuine remorse is seen as a mitigating factor, and lack of remorse an aggravating factor, but I have not been able to find any reports that state whether the driver is or is not remorseful. The sentencing guidelines also list a large number of other aggravating and mitigating factors, but I am not in possession of the relevant facts to know whether these apply or not.

If the above factors all told result in a custodial sentence being considered then it must be assessed whether the "custody threshold" has been passed. Again I am only aware of some of the facts in this case, but based on what I do know I think it likely that a custodial sentence would be regarded as appropriate.

Finally the discount for a guilty plea as discussed above is applied.

Taking everything above into account, if they plead not guilty, I would not be surprised with a sentence in the range of 5-15 years imprisonment. If they plead guilty then 2-10 years would be my guesstimate. As noted the minimum disqualification from driving is 5 years, but periods of disqualification are always longer than terms of imprisonment because they run concurrently (so that the disqualification applies if they are released before the end of their sentence for any reason).

They are also charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving and failing to provide a sample of blood.
Causing serious injury by dangerous driving is a new offence (came into force on 28 June this year) and sentencing guidelines have not been published. This offence is triable in either a magistrates court or crown court, but given the death by dangerous driving charge this will be heard in the latter, meaning the maximum sentence is 2 years imprisonment. There is also a mandatory disqualification, but I have not been able to immediately find out what the length of this is.
Failing to provide a sample of blood for analysis carries a maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine and a maximum 36 month disqualification (for a first offence). However if the reason they failed to provide is because they were in a coma then I would be very surprised if this was anything other than a low culpability, low harm situation where starting point is a band B fine (75 – 125% of relevant weekly income) and 12-16 month disqualification.

However, I stress that I am not a lawyer, I do not know all the relevant facts and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Evening Standard report:

Man charged after Park Royal crash that saw car go onto Tube line

Driver, 23, charged with death by dangerous driving

www.standard.co.uk

A man has been charged with death by dangerous driving after a woman died in a collision on the A40 in west London - which saw a car end up on the Piccadilly line Tube tracks.
Rida Kazem was also charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving and failing to provide a sample of blood. He has been bailed to appear in court in January.

Sentencing guidelines for failing to provide:

Fail to provide specimen for analysis (drive/attempt to drive) (Revised 2017)

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Maximum: Unlimited fine and/ or 6 months
Offence range: Band B fine – 26 weeks’ custody

 

[Cowley]

How does it work when it comes to providing a blood sample if you’re in a coma for some time after being admitted to hospital? Was he put into an induced coma and still able to talk when the emergency services got to the scene, or would they have taken bloods at the hospital and the police requested it via his lawyer?

If for example there was cocaine in his system, am I right in thinking that it wouldn’t show up in a blood test after three days anyway?

 

[DelW]

What potential sentence(s) might be handed down, if the accused pleads guilty / is found guilty, in due course?

Obviously if found guilty, the judge will base the sentence on a variety of factors, but this report today shows how serious it might be (and this was for causing death by "careless" rather than "dangerous" driving):

Driver jailed for crash that left five people dead

Alfredo Ciociola's four-year-old son was among those who died in the head-on collision in Moray.

www.bbc.co.uk

An Italian tourist convicted of causing the deaths of five people - including his own four-year-old son - in a crash in north east Scotland has been jailed.
Alfredo Ciociola, 50, drove a minibus on the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with a car on the A96 near Keith in July 2018.
Three passengers in the car were killed, along with Ciociola's friend Frances Saliba and his son Lorenzo.
He was jailed for three years at the High Court in Livingston.
He was also disqualified from driving for 10 years in the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why we don’t have proper manslaughter charges for this sort of act is baffling.

 

[philthetube]

The two cases above are very different, the Italian was IMO treated very harshly and should have just been sent packing with a life driving ban in the UK.

this one needs the heaviest book available thrown at him by Geoff Capes.

Sentencing for this offence is very similar to manslaughter so no need.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A couple of points regarding the above posts:
Nobody is "found innocent" by any court, they are found guilty or not guilty. This may seem a bit pedantic, but it is somewhat important from a legal perspective.
Secondly, Scottish law is different to English law, so such comparisons are not comparing like with like.

 

[E27007]

The driver:
Was the driver left in a state of coma for several weeks?
Has the driver recovered sufficiently to be able to stand trial?
Has the driver suffered life-changing injuries such as disabilty, reduced functional or mental capacity, even perhaps head/brain injuries?
Will the driver have any recollection of the event? Will the driver be able to give meaningful evidence to the court?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The driver:
Was the driver left in a state of coma for several weeks?
Has the driver recovered sufficiently to be able to stand trial?
Has the driver suffered life-changing injuries such as disabilty, reduced functional or mental capacity, even perhaps head/brain injuries?
Will the driver have any recollection of the event? Will the driver be able to give meaningful evidence to the court?

Based on my fairly limited knowledge of how the legal system functions: these are the sorts of details that will be being determined in the coming weeks and months. Both the prosecution and defence will prepare medical reports and psychological evidence if they believe it is necessary or likely to be advantageous. This is one of the reasons there are a number of preliminary hearings before the actual trial (or sentencing hearing if a guilty plea is entered) begins.

The bar for being determined unfit to stand trial is pretty high, in terms of mental impairment this would have to be quite severe. If more recovery and rehabilitation time is needed before a trial can begin, this can be granted by the judge.

If the driver pleads guilty to the charges (or is found guilty at trial), those medical and psychological reports (or new ones) can be submitted in mitigation by the defence.

 

[Taunton]

I understood the driver is an Iraqi citizen, and had a leg amputated among other injuries. More info here :

Iraqi-born man loses leg after car crash in London

LONDON: An Iraqi-born man has had his leg amputated and remains in a critical condition following a car crash that left one woman dead and two others injured in London. Rida Al-Mousawi, a 24-year-old jeweler, was reportedly driving his new supercharged Range Rover at around 120 mph when it left...

www.arabnews.com

I don't know whether he is in Britain or in Iraq now.

 

[bramling]

Why we don’t have proper manslaughter charges for this sort of act is baffling.

I was thinking exactly the same.

 

[Gloster]

Why we don’t have proper manslaughter charges for this sort of act is baffling.

Because there is an ingrained attitude that if you behave recklessly in a car it is somehow less serious than doing so in other situations. The belief in the ‘personal freedom’ that a car is supposed to give somehow seems to justify lower standards of behaviour. “We all make mistakes in a car, so this should just be treated as one (and not the reckless indifference to the safety of others that it should be).”

(Sorry, a bit of a hobby-horse of mine. A friend’s teenage daughter lost a leg after being hit by someone who was speeding in order to get to a meeting, but drove off after the accident leaving the two girls. Not even a prison sentence.)

 

[ainsworth74]

Why we don’t have proper manslaughter charges for this sort of act is baffling.

I was thinking exactly the same.

But if causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence the same as manslaughter (which it does) what would be achieved by charging such cases as manslaughter rather than a specific charge for the purpose?

 

[bramling]

But if causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence the same as manslaughter (which it does) what would be achieved by charging such cases as manslaughter rather than a specific charge for the purpose?

Symbolically, quite a lot.

A few weeks ago, I was reminding a train driver of the potential for a manslaughter charge in relation to platform/train interface incidents where investigation finds the train driver has been negligent or reckless. The term "manslaughter" resonates with people in a way that "dangerous driving" simply doesn't.

Given the circumstances of the Park Royal incident as they appear, I'd say this certainly meets the bar for manslaughter. Indeed it was a miracle more people weren't killed, the Tesla driver for starters, or if anyone had been working on the station or the Piccadilly Line tracks at the time.

 

[ainsworth74]

Symbolically, quite a lot.

A few weeks ago, I was reminding a train driver of the potential for a manslaughter charge in relation to platform/train interface incidents where investigation finds the train driver has been negligent or reckless. The term "manslaughter" resonates with people in a way that "dangerous driving" simply doesn't.

Given the circumstances of the Park Royal incident as they appear, I'd say this certainly meets the bar for manslaughter. Indeed it was a miracle more people weren't killed, the Tesla driver for starters, or if anyone had been working on the station or the Piccadilly Line tracks at the time.

Hmm yes I do see what you mean. I was perhaps focusing too much on what you might term "process" (that is getting the right punishment for the crime) rather than the weight that the word "manslaughter" carries (and I do agree it does carry more weight). That being said I'm not sure that this or other drivers who might do something similar would be dissuaded by thought "oh well if it goes wrong and I kill someone it'll be death by dangerous driving" rather than "it'll be manslaughter". But I do take your point!

The thing that gets me is that possibility that being convicted of causing a death by dangerous driving isn't an automatic permanent loss of licence. That seems particularly barmy. Feels like if you've killed someone due to your own dangerous driving that you shouldn't be legally able to get behind the wheel of a vehicle again...

 

[AlterEgo]

But if causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence the same as manslaughter (which it does) what would be achieved by charging such cases as manslaughter rather than a specific charge for the purpose?

Firstly, the separation of driving offences like this puts them in a different realm in the minds of the public.

Secondly, the sentencing guidelines are very different for both offences, with different starting points. This makes a lot of difference to how justice is dispensed, because the maximum sentence is comparatively rare.

This guy deserves life imprisonment but he won't get that. This is the worst possible driving, and he killed that woman. Lucky he wasn't killed too. I'll eat my hat if he gets the maximum sentence. I've never been enraged so much by a driving incident, it was absolutely repellent. I hope the full list of injuries the woman suffered en route to being deleted off the planet at the hands of this absolute cretin is read out in court and published on the front pages.

 

[bramling]

Firstly, the separation of driving offences like this puts them in a different realm in the minds of the public.

Secondly, the sentencing guidelines are very different for both offences, with different starting points. This makes a lot of difference to how justice is dispensed, because the maximum sentence is comparatively rare.

This guy deserves life imprisonment but he won't get that. This is the worst possible driving, and he killed that woman. Lucky he wasn't killed too. I'll eat my hat if he gets the maximum sentence. I've never been enraged so much by a driving incident, it was absolutely repellent. I hope the full list of injuries the woman suffered en route to being deleted off the planet at the hands of this absolute cretin is read out in court and published on the front pages.

Again, can only second the above.

 

[ainsworth74]

Firstly, the separation of driving offences like this puts them in a different realm in the minds of the public.

Yes, take your point (see my post above to @bramling)!

Secondly, the sentencing guidelines are very different for both offences, with different starting points. This makes a lot of difference to how justice is dispensed, because the maximum sentence is comparatively rare.

Will confess to having not studied the detail on sentencing guidelines but in that case I'd suggest that the guidelines need reviewing to tighten up the criteria to ensure that more significant jail terms, including the maximum, are given more easily for this sort of thing.

This guy deserves life imprisonment but he won't get that. This is the worst possible driving, and he killed that woman. Lucky he wasn't killed too. I'll eat my hat if he gets the maximum sentence. I've never been enraged so much by a driving incident, it was absolutely repellent. I hope the full list of injuries the woman suffered en route to being deleted off the planet at the hands of this absolute cretin is read out in court and published on the front pages.

Agreed.

 

[pdeaves]

I'd suggest that the guidelines need reviewing to tighten up the criteria

That may be desirable, but of course we are where we are now, a trial happening 'now' (or soon). The guidelines, if altered, would come into effect too late for this particular case where they would be desirable. So 'we' have to make sure the correct pre-existing terms are applied properly in this case (i.e. manslaughter, dangerous driving, whatever else may be relevant).

 

[ainsworth74]

That may be desirable, but of course we are where we are now, a trial happening 'now' (or soon). The guidelines, if altered, would come into effect too late for this particular case where they would be desirable. So 'we' have to make sure the correct pre-existing terms are applied properly in this case (i.e. manslaughter, dangerous driving, whatever else may be relevant).

Oh yes of course. This individual will be sentenced under the regime that applied when his crime was committed/trial takes place. That's only fair. It would be an extraordinarily dangerous slippery slope to retroactively change criminal liability. But for future offenders I'd be happy to see the sentencing tightened up for this offence (including automatic loss of licence!).

 

[rower40]

I find it baffling (*) that the police and CPS are reluctant (**) to charge car drivers with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" in these incidents. After all, cars kill lots of people[citation needed], so it could be considered to be a weapon.

(*) Alright, not really.
(**) Have never done so.

 

[ainsworth74]

I find it baffling (*) that the police and CPS are reluctant (**) to charge car drivers with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" in these incidents. After all, cars kill lots of people[citation needed], so it could be considered to be a weapon.

(*) Alright, not really.
(**) Have never done so.

Perhaps, but I suspect that as a matter of law they aren't deadly weapons. I suspect the issue will be that a car isn't intended to be used a weapon (unlike say a sword) or isn't specially categorised as such (as say a knife being carried around in public) depending on context. That isn't to say that the law couldn't be changed (or whether it should or not), but the CPS can't really charge people with something that isn't available to them in law to charge!

That being said whilst I can see the point raised above around charging with manslaughter rather the causing death by dangerous driving because of the psychological difference in wording (plus sentencing differences), and I'm coming around to the idea as I stew on it, I'm really not sure what charging someone with assault with a deadly weapon achieves. Plus is there even such a charge in law? Isn't it just the varying degrees of assault (that is common, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm) that are charged with the use of a weapon being an aggravating factor?

 

[contrex]

The two cases above are very different, the Italian was IMO treated very harshly and should have just been sent packing with a life driving ban in the UK.

There was the case of an American, in the UK on business, who went straight from a transatlantic flight to Newcastle airport, having not slept, picked up a hire car late at night, went the wrong way round a roundabout and along a dual carriageway, hit a car and killed 2. He got one year in prison. 6 months per life, with time off for good behaviour. Not much if you ask me.

 

[Enthusiast]

This guy deserves life imprisonment but he won't get that. This is the worst possible driving, and he killed that woman. Lucky he wasn't killed too. I'll eat my hat if he gets the maximum sentence.

Well the maximum sentence is "Life" with an accompanying "whole life" tariff. There's absolutely no chance of that so your hat (and your digestion) is quite safe.

What must also be borne in mind when discussing the difference between causing death by dangerous driving (CDDD) and manslaughter is that the maximum sentence for the former was increased from 14 years to Life only in June of this year. The Sentencing Guidelines have not yet been updated to accommodate that change. The "Starting Point" for the most serious offences of CDDD (as per the guidelines) is 8 years, with a sentencing range of 7 to 14 years custody. The Starting Point for the most serious offences of Manslaughter is 18 years, with a range of 11-24 years. However, I have a suspicion that a judge sentencing this character if he was charged with Manslaughter would not view the offence in the most serious category:

Unlawful act manslaughter

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

I believe it is more likely to fall into Category B:

"Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high risk of death or GBH which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender"

This has a Starting Point of 12 years and a range of 8-16 years. So it is likely that whether sentenced for Manslaughter or for CDDD, the sentence would be similar.

As far as driving bans go, both the Crown Court and the Magistrates' Court have the power to ban any offender for any offence (not solely for driving offences) for any period up to and including a ban for life. In practice such a ban would be reserved only for the most serious offences and even then very rarely imposed. Whilst I would accept that this must rank among the most serious example of a driving offence to be seen recently, I doubt a ban for life would be imposed, though a lengthy ban - taking into account the term to be served in prison - is a certainty.

I find it baffling (*) that the police and CPS are reluctant (**) to charge car drivers with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" in these incidents. After all, cars kill lots of people[citation needed], so it could be considered to be a weapon.

(*) Alright, not really.
(**) Have never done so.

A couple of reasons spring to mind:

Firstly there is no such offence.

Secondly, if there was, I imagine that the same criteria would be used to define a "deadly weapon" as are used to define offensive weapons, i.e. "...anything made or adapted to cause injury, or intended to be used as a weapon, including disguised weapons.". A car cannot realistically be said to fit that definition.

 

[Killingworth]

I suspect the loss of a leg will be taken into account when mitigation is applied to the sentence. Hard not to be reminded every hour of every day how that happened.

 

[Cowley]

I suspect the loss of a leg will be taken into account when mitigation is applied to the sentence. Hard not to be reminded every hour of every day how that happened.

I just don’t see why that should be taken into account though? It’s entirely self inflicted by his own recklessness, he killed one of his passengers and could easily have killed more people. At the estimated speeds he was driving a very large, heavy and powerful car if it hadn’t happened there it could have happened a mile down the road with even worse results.

If you’d robbed a bank and lost an arm on the way out, you’ve still robbed a bank.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect the loss of a leg will be taken into account when mitigation is applied to the sentence. Hard not to be reminded every hour of every day how that happened.

Being seriously injured in the crash is apparently a mitigating factor in the sentencing guidelines, like anyone should give a single shiny shilling about that. The crash was his fault; on the CCTV it looked like a plane crash. No sympathy here.

 

[DC1989]

He'll probably get a 6 month driving ban. Which are useless anyway because how often are driver's pulled over anyway? Once every couple of years if you're unlucky?

 

[the sniper]

Obviously if found guilty, the judge will base the sentence on a variety of factors, but this report today shows how serious it might be (and this was for causing death by "careless" rather than "dangerous" driving):

Driver jailed for crash that left five people dead

Alfredo Ciociola's four-year-old son was among those who died in the head-on collision in Moray.

www.bbc.co.uk

Given how much better the world would be if some criminals spent more, or even any time in jail, for despicable intentional acts which can even intentionally ruin lives, it seems hard to understand what is achieved in this case with a jail sentence of this length, particularly when the consequences have already been so severe for him. Though I'd hope that it was almost wholly given because he left the country and required extradition (thus serving as a deterrent) and there was very strong evidence to support a case that he was substantially/recklessly short of rest and clearly in an unfit state to drive though tiredness, and did indeed fall asleep. The comments from the Police Scotland Chief Insp seem to indicate this. Though if that were the case, the reasoning should have been made far clearer in reporting in order to truly serve as a deterrent to the wider public, as many people will drive in an under rested state.

Personally I'm deeply conscious/wary of driving abroad because of how easy an event like this could occur, particularly when getting off a flight.

 

[Roger1973]

My understanding (and for what it's worth, Wikipedia says so) is that the 'causing death by dangerous driving' offence was created in the 1950s because juries were seen as being reluctant to convict car drivers of manslaughter.

 

[bramling]

I suspect the loss of a leg will be taken into account when mitigation is applied to the sentence. Hard not to be reminded every hour of every day how that happened.

Don’t really see why it should be. Frankly, it serves the guy right, any thoughts should be to the other people who were killed, injured or endangered by this utter weapon.

This wasn’t a mistake, or even a momentary error, both the accident and its consequences should have been entirely forseeable to anyone with a driving licence. Lock away, throw away the key quite frankly, at least that way he won’t be in a position to do it again.