R v Dhiya Al Maamoury

In sentencing dangerous-driving offences, culpability must be assessed by examining the driving in its full context, including deliberate showing off, significant excess speed, and the presence of spectators or pedestrians. The guideline description of an obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre is heavily qualified and sets a high bar. Uncertainty over that single factor does not prevent a sentence at the boundary between categories A and B where the combined circumstances justify it. The totality of offending must reflect multiple deaths and serious injuries and may warrant a substantial uplift from the sentence for the lead offence. On appeal, the question is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive, not whether it is severe or could have been lower.

The appellant appealed by leave against a total sentence of 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment imposed at Wolverhampton Crown Court on 16 September 2024. He had pleaded guilty on the day fixed for trial, receiving 10 per cent credit, after causing two deaths and two serious injuries by dangerous driving. The Recorder placed the culpability in category A and used a nine-year figure for the lead offence before applying an uplift for the additional counts.

The appeal challenged the culpability categorisation, the six-year uplift for totality, and the weight given to mitigation, including previous good character and caring responsibilities. The central issues were whether the sentence was wrongly assessed or manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence.

1. Culpability categorisation. The submission that the case fell within category C was untenable. The driving was very substantially beyond the standard that was merely just over the threshold for dangerous driving.
2. Application of the category A guideline. The description of an obviously highly dangerous manoeuvre is heavily qualified. The requirement that the manoeuvre be both highly dangerous and obviously so raises a high bar. The court accepted that the Recorder’s reliance on that particular factor could be queried, but that did not vitiate the sentence.
3. Combined circumstances. The appellant had deliberately accelerated to show off, significantly exceeded the speed limit, knew that spectators and pedestrians were nearby, and drove an older heavily adapted vehicle which had shown a tendency to swing or swerve. Taken together, those circumstances placed the case at least on the cusp between categories A and B. Since eight years was the bottom of category A and nine years the top of category B, the selection of nine years as the notional figure was properly open to the sentencing judge.
4. Totality and mitigation. The two deaths and two grave injuries required a significant uplift. The increase of six years was not excessive. The Recorder had considered the appellant’s good character and caring responsibilities but was entitled to give them limited weight. The finding concerning awareness of police presence was immaterial; the significant point was the appellant’s knowledge of what the car meet involved and his deliberate showing off.
5. Appellate review. The sentence was severe, but the relevant question was whether it was manifestly excessive. It was not. The absence of an intention to cause harm did not prevent the court from upholding a substantial sentence for wilfully reckless driving with catastrophic consequences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 24 July 2025, the court upheld the sentence of 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and dismissed the appeal: [2025] EWCA Crim 1114.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 16 September 2024, the Recorder imposed the custodial sentence after the appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving and two counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.