IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]         This is yet another tragic driving case. The accused is a youthful first offender whose recklessness and risk taking caused the death of one young man and serious life-altering injuries to several others. The ripple effects extend well beyond the victims themselves, to their family, friends, and others in the wider community whose lives will never be the same. I include in that category Mr. Sandhu’s close family and friends as well as Mr. Sandhu himself, who must somehow learn to live with the terrible consequences of his conduct. The passage of time and support from others may heal some of these wounds or at least ease the pain, but the criminal justice system was not designed and is not equipped to put shattered lives back together again. The sentence I impose here today certainly takes into account this suffering and loss, as well as principles of sentencing which must guide me in the difficult task of crafting a fit penalty in this case.

[2]         On the 8^th of February 2021, Dilpreet Singh Sandhu pleaded guilty to the following Criminal Code driving offences, all of which were committed on the 18^th of May 2019:

[3]         Mr. Sandhu was 18 years old when these offences were committed. On the night of May 18, 2019, he was driving his father’s 2018 black Grand Cherokee and offered to ferry a group of five young people from a party bus to another party nearby. He had a Class 7 graduated license with restrictions that only permitted him to carry one additional passenger unless that passenger was a family member. The Grand Cherokee was only equipped with five seatbelts, but there were six occupants including Mr. Sandhu.

[4]         Mr. Sandhu operated the vehicle in a residential neighbourhood at speeds well above the 50 km/h speed limit when he struck a boulder in the road; that contact tripped the vehicle into a tumble. A police accident reconstructionist determined that the minimum speed range at point of impact was between 109-120 km/h, but data downloaded from the Grand Cherokee’s on board computer reported a speed of 153 km at 1.1 seconds prior to the collision, and 132 km/h at 0.1 seconds prior to the collision.

[5]         Mr. Sandhu told police in a warned statement that just prior to hitting the rock A.S., the [omitted for publication] girl who was the front seat passenger, grabbed the steering wheel and pulled it to the right, and that his over-correction back to the left caused him to lose control. When A.S. was interviewed by police she denied that she grabbed the wheel. While there is data from the Grand Cherokee’s on-board computer which to some extent supports Mr. Sandhu’s story, his counsel assures me that his client does not blame A.S. for the accident, and that he accepts it was excessive speeding on city streets which brought about this tragic result.

[6]         Mr. Sandhu and A.S. – [omitted for publication] - suffered only minor injuries; the two of them left the scene together before first responders arrived in the area. Mr. Sandhu surrendered himself at the Surrey RCMP detachment on the afternoon of the 18^th of May.

[7]         Tanvir Gill, also age 19, suffered a head injury and multiple abrasions and was released from hospital the following day.

[8]         Brandon Bassi, Mahekdeep Dhaliwal and Ayesha Khan were all thrown clear of the Jeep.

[9]         Brandon Bassi, age 19, suffered multiple injuries, including a severe traumatic brain injury. Mr. Bassi was removed from life support and pronounced dead five days later.

[10]      Mahekdeep Dhaliwal, age 20, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury. Mr. Dhaliwal was responsive and appeared to be recovering, but then became comatose six days after the accident, and remains in a persistent vegetative state. Mr. Dhaliwal is Mr. Sandhu’s cousin; their families raised them together in the same home and they were as close as brothers.

[11]      Ayesha Khan, age 17, also suffered a severe traumatic brain injury together with broken ribs, contusions to her brain and lungs, and a broken pelvis; the doctors expect that she will suffer the effects of the brain injury for the rest of her life.

[12]      The Crown submits that I should impose an aggregate penitentiary term of 2-3 years, or in the alternative, 2 years less a day jail plus 2 years probation should I decide that a penitentiary term is not required. The Crown also submits that Mr. Sandhu should be prohibited from driving for a period of 5 years and provide a sample of his DNA.

[13]      Defence counsel submits that a global sentence of 18 months jail followed by probation and a 3 year driving prohibition would be a fit sentence in this case.

[14]      I have had the benefit of fulsome submissions and other information about Mr. Sandhu’s background, his life since the 18^th of May 2019, and his current circumstances. These materials include a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), a psychological assessment commissioned by counsel for Mr. Sandhu, and a report from his treating therapist. Counsel has also filed numerous character reference letters written by close family and friends.

[15]      Mr. Sandhu is 20 years old; as noted at the outset of these reasons, he was 18 years old when these offences were committed. Mr. Sandhu has no prior criminal record, but he does have four prior Motor Vehicle Act (“MVA”) offences on his driving abstract, speeding and failing to display his “N” in September 2018, and two offences of driving contrary to his driver’s license restriction in March 2019. The latter two offences were committed just less than two months prior to the events of 18 May 2019.

[16]      Mr. Sandhu is the product of a close multi-generational family. He and his cousins were raised collectively and he considers Mahekdeep Dhaliwal (who is the son of his mother’s sister) more like a brother than a cousin. He reported witnessing some instances of domestic violence in the home some years ago. His was a decent student in school, but he was bullied at times in both middle school and high school.

[17]      Mr. Sandhu completed high school and works weekends at a family business in Cloverdale. He is about half way through a 14 month social service worker program at Vancouver Career College and he hopes to be certified as a social service worker. At the same time, he has been working through components of a home builders and inspection course at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (“BCIT”). Since November of 2020 he has been volunteering his time at two charities in the lower mainland. He has also entered into a relationship with a young woman who was present in court during the sentence hearing.

[18]      Prior to the events of 18 May Mr. Sandhu suffered to some extent from depression and anxiety; both have become more acute since. He has been attacked on social media, and the family home was shot at in the weeks following the collision. He feels isolated and lonely and is consumed by guilt. He began to see Dr. Keith Krull, who is a registered psychologist, in October of 2019. Mr. Sandhu has been seeing Dr. Krull regularly since that time, and Dr. Krull reports that after a difficult start, he has been making progress over the 86 sessions they have completed to date.

[19]      Dr. Patrick Bartel prepared a psychological assessment of Mr. Sandhu. He observed that Mr. Sandhu suffered from marked social anxiety and low self-esteem prior to the events of 18 May, and that his actions on that date were likely due to immaturity and attention seeking. He diagnosed Mr. Sandhu with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) arising from his exposure to domestic violence at home and bullying at school as well as the events of the 18^th of May and their aftermath. Dr. Bartel also diagnosed major depressive and anxiety disorders that he places in the mild to moderate category. It is Dr. Bartel’s view that Mr. Sandhu still requires ongoing psychotherapy to address his anxiety and his response to these offences.

[20]      Several members of Brandon Bassi’s family, including his mother Pam, sister Dalbir, and brother Derrick, chose to read their statements in court. Anyone who was present in court on that day would appreciate the heartbreak and sense of despair that Mr. Bassi’s family have experienced since Brandon was taken from them. Greg Parkes, Brandon’s coach at North Delta Senior Secondary, read his community impact statement describing the positive impact this young man had on others at his high school, his many accomplishments as a soccer and basketball player, and his full scholarship at Simon Fraser University where he was selected to play on the men’s varsity team. Many others wrote statements expressing the heartbreak within the family and the surrounding community after the loss of a young, outgoing, and accomplished young man who had so much more to give. I listened carefully to these statements as they were presented in court, and I have read the others. It is clear that Brandon Bassi’s family and friends continue to struggle with the pain of his loss.

[21]      Ayesha Khan submitted her own victim impact statement. Ms. Khan was 17 years old at the time of the accident, which she describes as life changing. She describes in eloquent terms the physical pain and emotional struggles she has endured since she was injured in the collision, and her despair for a future marred by such a traumatic event.

[22]      The purpose and principles of sentencing appear in the Criminal Code at sections 718 and 718.2. As set out there and elsewhere in the case law, any sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity and nature of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime. In R. v. Bosco, 2016 BCCA 55, the Court of Appeal commented on the factors relevant to assessing the moral blameworthiness of an offender:

[23]      There is no debate that the primary principles of sentencing for the offences of dangerous driving causing death and/or bodily harm are denunciation, general and specific deterrence: R. v. Bosco, supra, at para. 38. Offenders in driving cases are frequently pro-social persons who have little or no prior contact with the criminal justice system. Mr. Sandhu is just that type of person. As noted by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Bosco, supra at para. 37, the consequences of dangerous driving are rarely intended, but the risk taking that produced them is undertaken by choice. The sentences imposed for these offences are designed to denounce the kind of risk-taking and reckless behaviour that is the gravamen of the offence of dangerous driving, and deter the offender, and others like him, from engaging in driving behaviours which all too often cause tragedies just like this one.

[24]      While these principles are paramount in cases of this type, the court must not fail to consider as well that “one of the main objectives of Canadian criminal law is the rehabilitation of offenders” which assists the court to impose a sentence in any given case which is “just and appropriate”: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 4; see also R. v. Schneider, 2019 BCCA 310 at paras. 10-11. I am also mindful of the principle of restraint, best reflected in sub-sections 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code.

[25]      I find that the following aggravating factors arise on the facts of this case:

[26]      I have also taken into account the following mitigating factors:

[27]      Crown and defence counsel have submitted numerous case authorities that set a broad range for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, and for the offence of leaving the scene – I have attached the Crown and defence indices of authorities as an appendix to these reasons. Those cases cover the wide variety of circumstances that might apply for a particular accused and the conduct that underlies the commission of the offence. In Bosco, supra, the court noted that “determining a fit sentence in a dangerous driving case is a particularly fact-sensitive exercise”: R. v. Bosco, supra, at para. 40.

[28]      The range of sentence for leaving the scene of an accident also varies, but it is possible to identify a typical range of three to 18 months jail: R. v. Gourlay, 2018 BCSC 884 at para. 57. Counsel agree that any sentence I impose for this offence should be consecutive to the sentences imposed for the two dangerous driving offences. See R. v. McCrea, 2008 BCCA 227 and R. v. Gill, 2010 BCCA 388. It is also important to remember that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh: Criminal Code section 718.2(c).

[29]      In any event, sentencing ranges are not hard and fast categories. They are not intended to set a baseline minimum sentence in all cases, regardless of the circumstances, and they do not preclude lesser or greater sentences if warranted. Sentencing is an inherently individualized process. No two offenders are identically situated. There is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime. A sentence outside the usual range can be imposed so long as it is in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing: R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; R. v. Lacasse, supra; R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, paras. 35, 43 and 46; R. v. Williams, 2019 BCCA 295; R. v. Padda, 2019 BCCA 351.

[30]      These are grave driving offences and the consequences for the victims and their families were and are profound. The conduct here, driving at speeds many times the speed limit and in a residential neighbourhood was egregious; coupled with the fact of an overloaded vehicle and not enough seatbelts, it was also a tragedy waiting to happen. Insofar as the driving and these other circumstances are concerned, Mr. Sandhu’s moral blameworthiness falls at the higher end of the scale.

[31]      I have commented above on the principle of rehabilitation and its role in sentencing. There is no question that this principle is important and must be taken into account, but it plays a lesser role in cases such as these, where the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender require that I place a greater emphasis on society’s denunciation of Mr. Sandhu’s conduct: R. v. Sater, 2014 BCSC 1036 at para. 53.

[32]      The offence of leaving the scene knowing that one or more persons have been injured or killed is also a grave offence which, in addition to being a failure to exercise basic human decency, frustrates the opportunity of authorities to investigate the circumstances of the accident, in particular the sobriety or otherwise of the driver. In this case, Mr. Sandhu’s moral blameworthiness moves up the scale because he walked away from the scene after being warned not to do so by a nearby witness.

[33]      In assessing Mr. Sandhu’s moral blameworthiness for this conduct, I have taken into account that he was only 18 at the time these offences were committed. I have also considered the opinion of Dr. Bartel that his actions when driving were likely due in large part to immaturity and attention seeking. I think that is a fair assessment. Dr. Bartel adds that his leaving the scene of the accident was at least in part a product of psychological shock and dissociation rendering him somewhat less likely to exercise good judgment. I agree that these factors were likely in play, and it also seems logical to me that his age and immaturity contributed to that decision. Collectively, I find that these factors reduce somewhat Mr. Sandhu’s moral blameworthiness for these offences.

[34]      In arriving at a fit sentence in this case, I cannot help but consider as well that Mr. Sandhu will likely be haunted by what he has done for the rest of his life. While anyone with a conscience would likely experience the same thing, there is the additional fact here that one of his victims is Mahekdeep Dhaliwal, the cousin with whom he was so close that he considers him a brother. Mr. Dhaliwal survived the collision and resides at home with his family, but in a vegetative state, a twilight existence that is no life at all. His family, and they are also Mr. Sandhu’s family, care for Mahekdeep in their home. Mr. Sandhu assists with his care on a near daily basis. It is not often that a person is required to face such an immediate, inescapable and continuing reminder of his own tragic mistakes. I expect that this will be a special kind of purgatory for Mr. Sandhu that, over time, will pale in comparison to any sentence I impose here.

[35]      Having considered the authorities presented by counsel, the applicable principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the offence and the offender, I have concluded that a penitentiary sentence is not required here. Mr. Sandhu’s age and immaturity when these offences were committed is the factor which persuades me that a sentence in the provincial range with probation to follow is sufficient.

[36]      On Count 1, the offence of dangerous driving causing the death of Brandon Bassi, I impose a sentence of 18 months jail.

[37]      On Count 3, the offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm to three other passengers in the car, the sentence I impose is 15 months jail, concurrent with the sentence on Count 1.

[38]      On Counts 2 and 4, the two offences of leaving the scene, I impose concurrent sentences of 3 months jail which will be consecutive to the sentence imposed on Count 1.

[39]      The global sentence is 21 months jail.

[40]      The jail sentence will be followed by a 2 year term of probation which applies to all four counts.

[41]      The conditions of that order will be the following:

[42]      The Crown asks that I impose a 5 year driving prohibition pursuant to s. 320.24(4) of the Criminal Code. The defence agrees that a prohibition is necessary in this case, but asks suggests a 3 year term. I have considered Mr. Sandhu’s age and driving record together with his driving conduct here, and I am satisfied that a 3 year prohibition is sufficient.

[43]      Mr. Sandhu is prohibited from operating any motor vehicle on any street, road, highway or other public place in Canada for a period of 3 years plus the period of imprisonment imposed for these offences.

[44]      All four offences are secondary designated offences, so an order that Mr. Sandhu provide a sample of his DNA is discretionary. After considering the factors set out in section 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code, I am satisfied that it is in the best interest of the administration of justice to authorize the taking of a sample of bodily substances from you. The samples will be taken from you while you are in custody and you must submit to the taking of the samples.

[45]      The victim fine surcharge is waived.