R v Omar Choudhury

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal asks whether the sentencing judge properly applied the guidelines to the facts and weighed the competing considerations. It will not interfere where no arguable error is shown.

A threat or pursuit may explain why dangerous driving began, but does not justify sustained driving where responsible alternatives were available. Previous dangerous driving may limit the weight of good character and reinforce culpability. Age and maturity remain relevant, but may not materially reduce sentence for an offence of the highest seriousness.

Following a trial at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court, Omar Choudhury was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving after the death of 16-year-old Alisha Goup. On 13 September 2023, the judge sentenced him to 14 years' imprisonment. He was also disqualified from driving for 14 years and four months under section 35 A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

After refusal by the single judge, he renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on the threat and pursuit preceding the driving, his age and maturity, lack of previous convictions and character. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had sufficiently accounted for those matters when applying the sentencing guidelines.

Application refused. The Court of Appeal found no arguable error in the sentencing judge's assessment or application of the sentencing guidelines.

1. The judge was well placed to assess how much weight should be given to the incident beginning with Mr Rahman's threat and pursuit, viewed against the way the driving continued and the safer options available. The threat may have triggered the incident, but it did not justify prolonged dangerous driving. The applicant could have driven safely to a place of safety or contacted the police. The applicant therefore retained a high degree of responsibility, and only a modest reduction was warranted.
2. The applicant's conduct was properly treated as falling within culpability category A. The judge was entitled to take account of the prolonged and deliberate course of dangerous driving, excessive speed, driving on the wrong side of the road, the heavily populated setting, the vulnerable pedestrian victim, the modified vehicle and evidence of earlier dangerous driving. These matters justified a substantial upward adjustment from the 12-year starting point.
3. The judge had considered the applicant's age, maturity, lack of previous convictions, remorse and other mitigation. Good character carried limited weight against an offence of this gravity, particularly in light of the evidence of repeated dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal accepted that the judge had balanced all relevant factors and that his application of the guidelines could not be faulted.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 4 July 2024, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 1130.
• Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court: On 14 August 2023, the applicant was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. On 13 September 2023, he was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment. On 18 September 2023, he was disqualified from driving for 14 years and four months.