Adebisi, R. v

A sentencing court may apply an existing guideline to a statutory driving offence introduced after the guideline, where the guideline provides the appropriate sentencing framework. The court should identify the description which most closely matches the drug quantity and quality of driving, then adjust the starting point for aggravating and mitigating factors.

Proof of impairment is not an element of the offence, but a drug level substantially above that at which impairment would be expected is relevant to seriousness. A driver must keep a proper lookout when turning into a clearly visible side road; a passenger’s failure to see a hazard does not reduce that responsibility.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Woolwich of causing the death of a pedestrian by driving without due care and attention while the level of cannabis in his blood exceeded the specified limit. He had driven into a side road and failed to see the deceased lying in the carriageway. He was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for seven years and three months.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the offence fell within the lowest guideline categories, that the deceased’s conduct was mitigating, and that both the custodial term and disqualification were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment, and the driving disqualification, were not manifestly excessive and were within the range properly open to the sentencing judge.

2. The judge correctly considered the 2008 Sentencing Guidelines Council guideline, although it pre-dated the statutory amendment creating this form of offence. As confirmed by R v Mohammed [2018] EWCA Crim 596, the guideline remained an appropriate framework. It required the sentencer to identify the description most closely matching the facts and then adjust the resulting starting point for aggravating and mitigating factors.

3. The judge ought to have stated expressly which guideline level he selected. Read as a whole, however, his remarks showed that he had selected the category of moderate drug quantity and other cases of careless driving, while making a modest downward adjustment because the driving was close to momentary inattention. That categorisation was open to him.

4. Impairment was not an element of the offence. It was nevertheless relevant to seriousness that the cannabis level was more than three times the permitted limit and significantly above the level at which impairment would be expected. The appellant could and should have seen the deceased. He was responsible for keeping a proper lookout when turning into the clearly visible side road, and the rear-seat passenger’s failure to see the deceased did not assist him.

5. The judge was entitled to give limited weight to mitigation, including employment loss, in light of the appellant’s undisclosed regular cannabis use while working as a taxi driver. That circumstance was also material to the period of disqualification.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal dismissed.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: The appellant was convicted on 21 December 2018 and, on 7 February 2019, sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for seven years and three months.