A drug-using bus driver who fell asleep at the wheel and killed a nine-year-old girl who was cycling on the pavement has had his prison term increased by almost three years at the Court of Appeal, after the Solicitor General argued that his initial four-year sentence was “unduly lenient”.
Martin Asolo-Ogugua, driving a double-decker Arriva bus, was found to have been almost three times over the legal cannabis limit when he fell asleep for 15 seconds, drifted across the road, and mounted the pavement, fatally striking Ada Bicakci, who was cycling on the footpath with her father and brother on her way to a gymnastics class last August.
While her family were able to jump to safety, nine-year-old Ada was left with “catastrophic injuries” following the collision, which took place in Bexleyheath, south London on the morning of 3 August 2024. She died in hospital two days later.
In June, 24-year-old Asolo-Ogugua was sentenced to four years in prison and disqualified from driving for seven years after pleading guilty to causing Ada’s death by dangerous driving and driving while unfit through drugs.
During that hearing in June, Senior Crown Prosecutor Miranda Jollie branded Asolo-Ogugua’s actions “reckless and utterly selfish”.

Following the sentencing, Solicitor General Lucy Rigby KC MP referred the case to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, arguing at a hearing on Wednesday that it should be increased.
Three senior judges agreed, and ruled that Asolo-Ogugua’s sentence should be lengthened to six years and eight months.
The judges also ruled that the 24-year-old should be disqualified from driving for five years upon his release, instead of the initial seven-year disqualification handed out in June, which would have included his stint in prison.
At the hearing, Lord Justice Dingemans said that while Asolo-Ogugua had “acknowledged that he had destroyed his victim’s family, and his own”, he had “disregarded the risk of danger to others for the period that he was driving”.
“He must have appreciated that he was in no fit state to drive, but continued to drive,” the judge said.
Representing the Solicitor General, Peter Ratliff told the court that Asolo-Ogugua worked as a bus driver for Arriva and had had only returned home from a social event at around 6.30am before almost immediately heading out to work his scheduled shift on the morning of 3 August. He left the company’s Dartford depot at around 8.45am, driving a double-decker bus.
CCTV footage from inside his cab showed Asolo-Ogugua “yawning repeatedly, appearing drowsy, opening the window for fresh air, and his eyes appearing to close on occasion”.
“Other road users noted his vehicle was being driven erratically” over a period of around 13 minutes, Mr Ratliff added.
He then appeared to fall asleep for “up to 15 seconds”, with CCTV showing the bus drift across the carriageway and onto the pavement, colliding with Ada as she cycled on the footpath on Watling Street, Bexleyheath.
Asolo-Ogugua was arrested at the scene, where he also failed a drug test, having taken cannabis the night before.
Mr Ratliff argued this week at the Court of Appeal that the bus driver’s sentence should be increased as there was “a lack of attention to driving for a substantial period of time” and that he drove “when deprived of adequate sleep”.
“He must have appreciated from the outset, if he had not already, that he was in no fit state to drive and what he was doing was therefore inherently dangerous,” the barrister said.
Ratliff also acknowledged that Asolo-Ogugua “made efforts to seek assistance for the victim” at the time of the collision and had subsequently “demonstrated clear remorse”.
Representing Asolo-Ogugua, Gregory Fishwick told the court that the case was a “tragedy”, and that while the sentence “might be classified as lenient” it was “not unduly so”.
“He will never forget this. It was a tragedy, one that he will feel forever,” Fishwick said.
Following the court’s decision to increase Asolo-Ogugua’s prison sentence to six years and eight months, Solicitor General Lucy Rigby said: “Martin Asolo-Oguagua’s selfishness needlessly took the life of a young girl, causing irreparable damage to a family.
“I welcome the court’s decision to increase his sentence and would like to extend my deepest sympathies to Ada’s family.”

In a victim impact statement read to the court following the initial sentencing in June, Ada’s father Bora Bicakci said his family’s world was “fractured beyond repair”.
“This tragedy happened on my watch, a father’s ultimate failure. My world has been turned upside down, and with it, the foundations of my family have crumbled,” he said.
“My darling Ada. Our thanks are not enough to show our gratitude for you. We will honour your name with acts of magnitude. You will never be forgotten.”
A keen gymnast and swimmer, Ada was described by her primary school as a “popular and happy pupil”, while her parents also said she was a beautiful child with a “huge, kind heart, who loved to help those in need”.




-1024x680.jpg)


















31 thoughts on “Cannabis-using bus driver who fell asleep at the wheel and killed nine-year-old girl cycling on the pavement has “unduly lenient” prison sentence increased”
Still far too lenient.
Still far too lenient.
They are usually released
They are usually released early, if they behave correctly. At half the time…
RIP
RIP
On the one hand, sentence increased. On the other what have “professional drivers” got to do to get one of those “throw the book at them” sentences (maximum now increased from 14 years to life)? In this case not just in charge of a large, dangerous vehicle but also responsible for passengers?
As always though the most urgent questions are “why does this kind of thing keep happening” and “how do we stop this kind of thing happening”?
Is it “professional drivers not professional enough” – like this incident in Grimsby, blamed on the victim, or this one where the bus driver was not looking … ?
Is it just a case of the trivialisation of driving while intoxicated? Or simply “we need buses and sadly we can’t stop every wrong’un…”?
SImilarly I was under the
SImilarly I was under the misapprehension that Police drivers were treated more harshly for road traffic offences but this is not the case. They are treated exactly the same as the man on the Clapham omnibus (albeit when is driving and not a passenger).
I’m going to stick my neck
I’m going to stick my neck out and say that whilst what happened is awful and the guy should receive a criminal record, this case and the law that underpins it is politically motivated.
You do not have to be impaired to be prosecuted under these drug driving laws and the legal limit is ridiculously low such that it’s quite possible (even at 3x the limit) the person is not impaired, especially if they are a regular user and have built up tolerance.
It seems more likely this guy was overworked and stressed and turned to cannabis to relieve his symptoms. And questions need to be asked about the behaviour of the company toward him and its work practices.
He could be a regular user of alcohol and be unfit to drive due to being totally hungover and would still be under the legal alcohol limit. If he had too much then fair enough but you can’t just say because he has some THC in his system that this made him fall asleep Then vilify everyone who uses it in the media, including those who use it medicinally and drive above the legal limit legally.
Maybe you should actually
Maybe you should actually research the case before spouting your pro-dope nonsense?
Medicinal use is no excuse, just as it wouldn’t be if you took any other medication that impaired your driving. Keep your cobblers to yourself.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
This is exactly the attitude I’m talking about. You immediately assume I am ‘pro weed’ just because I’m taking this stance. I’m not a cannabis user and would not encourage people to use it whilst driving. I am pro-science. In this case the person’s drug use is important but it shouldn’t be the focus of the headlines because it’s unlikely to have played much of a role. Moreover, most drivers are drug users, in some form or another but we don’t hear that repeated again and again.
The impairment here is unlikely to have been down to this persons use of cannabis but the law is set up to make an example of these people as opposed to others. Even users of cocaine (which is undetectable a lot sooner) get off more lightly.
But as said, this person was clearly irresponsible and his actions led to the accident. Thus, he should be convicted and receive a custodial sentence. No need for hysteria about cannabis use and driving in the media over it though.
No “accident”!
No “accident”!
Except that (on the basis of
Except that (on the basis of what’s reported here, which is admittedly only a very partial view of the case) very little emphasis seems to have been placed on the drug use – the focus appears to have been much more on the lack of sleep. Yes, the original charge included the aggravation of being unfit through drugs, but the increase in the sentence looks to be simply on the basis that he was clearly unfit and dangerous (whatever the cause).
And what about returning from
And what about returning from a social event at 6.30 am and going straight out to do his bus driving shift?
Wasn’t it a basic responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure that you he was fit to do do his job?
I agree with your points about cannabis v alcohol testing. But duty is paid on one and not the other.
horace_goes_sking wrote:
Sounds like we’re firmly in “I can have four pints and it doesn’t touch me” territory, but with weed. Although “it’s not booze / it’s only weed, so no worries” seems to have cemented itself in the minds of a chunk of the population.
And as mdavidford points out – this would probably have still been prosecuted (as others have been, albeit with varying sentences e.g. here, here …) for only being unfit through lack of sleep.
I’m not saying it’s harmless
I’m not saying it’s harmless or can’t lead to impairment, it can. But ultimately it’s a different drug that has different effects on the brain, some of which can result in drivers being more cautious. Part of the issue with cannabis and driving is drivers being too cautious and this having the potential to cause accidents. This is borne out in scientific studies. It’s quite different to say alcohol which promotes risk taking behaviour.
So yes it can be dangerous but it’s not as dangerous as drink driving. The law should reflect this but it actually does the opposite.
Quote:
Absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever and if it were true the defence would no doubt have put it forward in mitigation. “More likely” this guy simply enjoyed getting stoned at parties and totally misjudged his fitness to drive a PSV after a sleepless night involving drugs. The poor little girl’s death is on him, 100%, and I’m quite shocked that anyone would seek to deflect blame from where it so very obviously lies.
I used to smoke a fair bit of weed in my teens and early twenties and I’m not opposed to decriminalisation. However, I know from personal experience that if you have a smoke in the evening, not even a particularly big one, in the morning you’re quite likely to have “dope fog”, a feeling of some disconnection and lethargy, even at a point where one would pass the legal tests. I wouldn’t ride my bike the morning after smoking the night before, let alone drive a PSV. This filth was a professional driver, fully aware (or should have been) of both the law and recommended safe practices regarding fitness to drive and chose both to smoke dope and go without sleep all night then go to work. Because of this he killed a little girl. There are no excuses for the horror he has inflicted on her and her family.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever and if it were true the defence would no doubt have put it forward in mitigation. “More likely” this guy simply enjoyed getting stoned at parties and totally misjudged his fitness to drive a PSV after a sleepless night involving drugs. The poor little girl’s death is on him, 100%, and I’m quite shocked that anyone would seek to deflect blame from where it so very obviously lies.
I used to smoke a fair bit of weed in my teens and early twenties and I’m not opposed to decriminalisation. However, I know from personal experience that if you have a smoke in the evening, not even a particularly big one, in the morning you’re quite likely to have “dope fog”, a feeling of some disconnection and lethargy, even at a point where one would pass the legal tests. I wouldn’t ride my bike the morning after smoking the night before, let alone drive a PSV. This filth was a professional driver, fully aware (or should have been) of both the law and recommended safe practices regarding fitness to drive and chose both to smoke dope and go without sleep all night then go to work. Because of this he killed a little girl. There are no excuses for the horror he has inflicted on her and her family.
Sleepless night involving drugs, yes they shouldn’t drive and should be totally culpable for what happens.
A few spliffs in the evening before going to work the next day. It’s hardly the crime of the century and dare I say it is better than popping to the pub that evening for a few beers (not getting plastered) and going to work the next day which I’m sure a lot of bus drivers do.
That being said they are driving a bus and should indeed be held to a higher standard than the general public.
Ultimately, if you feel impaired you shouldn’t drive but you’re assuming everyone feels like you and they don’t necessarily. For some, cannabis use may actually improve the quality of their sleep. Alcohol doesn’t improve the quality of anyone’s sleep yet I’ll bet that despite the supposed zero tolerance, it’s embedded in the work culture of these bus companies.
horace_goes_sking wrote:
It would appear from the article that it did improve his sleep, the problem is he didn’t go home to bed after the party, he went straight out to drive a bus and fell asleep at the wheel!
horace_goes_sking wrote:
Also
You do seem to be falling back to “only some weed, innit” again there. Which is again a (fairly) popular view, plus there’s some “scientific” (there’s always some judgement involved) support for “better than alcohol” / “we’d be better with coca or khat or kava …” BUT skipping the whole “War on Some Drugs” angle…
… and while I can’t find the full judgement (not online yet?)
… from reports it seems intoxication itself wasn’t the major factor in sentencing b) driving while intoxicated – booze, all kinds of other drugs, both legal generally, not generally legal but prescribed for that person etc. doesn’t matter – is currently not legal *.
This chap may have been more or less affected by the cannabis, and may or may not have felt it. (All drugs can have varying effects, even for the same measurable concentrations in the same individual, tolerance of some effects doesn’t equate to tolerance of all etc. I believe the whole point of “drugs” is they’re psychoactive. Having people judge things by introspection alone is a terrible idea. See again “I wasn’t affected at all, I’d not even had six beers”).
But it seems he was indeed aware a) he’d had it large and b) he was at least seriously tired (see opening window etc). That seems to be what the court has picked up on.
* As far as I know, highly likely I’m overlooking loopholes/exceptions. I’d actually suggest that people should be driving a lot less anyway simply due to tiredness / various emotional states. But that’s a whole other kettle of mushrooms, leaves and vines – people with young children / caring responsibilities / emotional crises in their lives / medics with long shifts etc…
chrisonabike wrote:
Also
You do seem to be falling back to “only some weed, innit” again there. Which is again a (fairly) popular view, plus there’s some “scientific” (there’s always some judgement involved) support for “better than alcohol” / “we’d be better with coca or khat or kava …” BUT skipping the whole “War on Some Drugs” angle…
… and while I can’t find the full judgement (not online yet?)
… from reports it seems intoxication itself wasn’t the major factor in sentencing b) driving while intoxicated – booze, all kinds of other drugs, both legal generally, not generally legal but prescribed for that person etc. doesn’t matter – is currently not legal *.
This chap may have been more or less affected by the cannabis, and may or may not have felt it. (All drugs can have varying effects, even for the same measurable concentrations in the same individual, tolerance of some effects doesn’t equate to tolerance of all etc. I believe the whole point of “drugs” is they’re psychoactive. Having people judge things by introspection alone is a terrible idea. See again “I wasn’t affected at all, I’d not even had six beers”).
But it seems he was indeed aware a) he’d had it large and b) he was at least seriously tired (see opening window etc). That seems to be what the court has picked up on.
* As far as I know, highly likely I’m overlooking loopholes/exceptions. I’d actually suggest that people should be driving a lot less anyway simply due to tiredness / various emotional states. But that’s a whole other kettle of mushrooms, leaves and vines – people with young children / caring responsibilities / emotional crises in their lives / medics with long shifts etc…
— horace_goes_sking
A few spliffs in the evening is basically the medicinal dose for many and people are allowed to drive if that medication has been prescribed. It is their responsibility however to judge whether they are impaired.
Obviously the bar is a lot higher when dealing with drivers of articulated vehicles.
The legal limits of blood alcohol are actually based on how impaired the individual is.
This is not the case for cannabis and the mere presence of the substance in their blood will result in a minimum one year ban from driving plus obviously more serious consequences if anything bad happens like in this case. The law does not reflect the science on this. It’s not about risk, it’s about politics.
Applying these cannabis testing standards to alcohol would be like convicting people for using mouthwash. It’s a ridiculous set of laws.
horace_goes_sking wrote:
We’ve enough folks driving badly without any drugs needed. I think we need less (including alcohol) not more when it comes to operating dangerous equipment.
Society and the law may be an ass / there’s tons of hypocrisy around this topic, different drugs may hang around the body for longer and be less of a risk for some activities etc … but kids, let’s just say no – to taking anything stronger than a tea or coffee or so (energy drinks probably need a check too…) and driving.
You be the expert (compared to me) … but I’m gonna bet that “medicinal use” and the average UK “few spliffs in an evening” are probably wildly different (had to look things up – and medical dosages seem to vary quite a lot, this all seems “try it and see what works for you”). And aside from that, my nose tells me that some folks out on the roads are toking like 90s rappers *.
Which would be fair, if they were drinking a bottle or so. Or are you suggesting most cannabis users are applying the Bill Clinton method of dope smoking?
* Though that could be their passengers. Or maybe their car just overheated?
chrisonabike wrote:
We’ve enough folks driving badly without any drugs needed. I think we need less (including alcohol) not more when it comes to operating dangerous equipment.
Society and the law may be an ass / there’s tons of hypocrisy around this topic, different drugs may hang around the body for longer and be less of a risk for some activities etc … but kids, let’s just say no – to taking anything stronger than a tea or coffee or so (energy drinks probably need a check too…) and driving.
You be the expert (compared to me) … but I’m gonna bet that “medicinal use” and the average UK “few spliffs in an evening” are probably wildly different (had to look things up – and medical dosages seem to vary quite a lot, this all seems “try it and see what works for you”). And aside from that, my nose tells me that some folks out on the roads are toking like 90s rappers *.
Which would be fair, if they were drinking a bottle or so. Or are you suggesting most cannabis users are applying the Bill Clinton method of dope smoking?
* Though that could be their passengers. Or maybe their car just overheated?
— horace_goes_sking
Chris, regards drink driving, police forces have procedures in place to avoid false positives. If a sample of breath must be taken at the station, the law requires there be a 20 minute waiting period before, in order for the evidence to be admissible in court. This is to avoid false positives caused by mouthwash for example.
Anyway, I’m sure you get the point. Mouthwash wouldn’t send someone to prison, evidence of its use wouldn’t even reach court. But tiny evidence of THC and the driver gets a criminal record and 12 month driving ban.
As for driving on drugs in general, I’m sorry but the DVLA have allowed this for many many years and whilst cannabis may be a controlled drug, it’s effectively just another medication and like any medication it has potential side effects.
The fact people are allowed to drive on it suggests that it’s not as harmful or dangerous as the media have led people to believe. And it may surprise you but medicinal cannabis patients sometimes use a lot of cannabis, more so than recreational users. I personally wouldn’t want them driving buses but it’s really not for me to say. Okay maybe as a vulnerable road user I have a say in it…..The DVLA should be very careful but should follow the science not scare stories in the media or political posturing by various figures
Like Rendel I’d point out
Like Rendel I’d point out again the original story is about dangerous driving and no thought for others, and it was. So perhaps best not to come out with “is it cannabis prejudice” until we get the full judgement and can compare that to the details for other killer drivers in terms of sentencing rationale. FWIW there *does* seem to be a wide variation in sentencing in these cases which I as a layperson can’t fathom.
Well, good luck with the campaign. I would agree that the law drugs in general but cannabis in particular could do with an overhaul. It’s certainly commonly used regardless.
In my brief catch-up with the current state of “medical” including some government stuff I haven’t seen much more rigorous evaluation than “people say they feel fine” and “lots of people are already driving stoned out there”.
That was just a skim of this stuff but it wasn’t hugely reassuring that cold collection and evaluation of data comparatively had been done. And again – we *do* currently restrict driving in the car of many medicines. The “fact that it’s allowed” I think has more to do with laws and policies not necessarily being thought their in all areas / joined up. (I’m sure there must be more studies but didn’t notice them cited).
IDK – perhaps tweaking limits is appropriate? I’m more “maybe just don’t drive”. And for provision of alternatives (like more public transport! ) so that fewer feel they have to drive, on drugs *or sober*.
horace_goes_sking wrote:
Just to be pedantic, a bus is not an articulated vehicle: an articulated vehicle is one comprising at least two separate components linked by a pivoting coupling, like a truck and trailer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Just to be pedantic, a bus is not an articulated vehicle: an articulated vehicle is one comprising at least two separate components linked by a pivoting coupling, like a truck and trailer.— horace_goes_sking
Yes, as I wrote that I suspected it was the wrong term but was struggling to come up with a term to cover buses and HGVs, remembering that bendy buses were referred to as ‘articulated vehicles’ many years ago. In hindsight I realise this is in virtue of the fact heir rear section is articulated. But crazy as the term ‘large vehicle’ would have probably sufficed. Then again that doesn’t really cover minibuses, so maybe isn’t the best term to use here.
Do you really not see that
Do you really not see that this case is a totally inappropriate hook upon which to hang any of your pro-cannabis arguments (with which, as I stated, I have some sympathy)? Yes it may well be worse for someone to drink alcohol the evening before driving, yes alcohol may be worse for you than cannabis etc etc etc. It doesn’t matter. In this case the fucker went out partying all night, smoked dope, went straight out to drive a PSV and as a result of his previous activities killed a nine-year-old girl who was cycling on the pavement to her gymnastics class. Don’t try and blame it, without any evidence, on the bus company or the poor little chap feeling stressed, he did an appalling thing out of selfish hedonism and killed a child as a result. It’s 100% his fault and his sentence is derisory, even with the increased tariff.
Rendel, upon reflection I
Rendel, upon reflection I should have avoided speculation about the behaviour of the bus company. I agree that in this case he was likely wholly at fault for what happened given his behaviour the previous night.
I must reiterate my condemnation of his actions, which I have stated repeatedly. I agree this probably isn’t the best article to put forward supposedly ‘pro-cannabis’ arguments, my concern is more about any media furore generated over his drug use.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to discuss the merits of the legislation when an event like this happen. In hindsight maybe it’s best not to raise this when the event involves the death of a child. Evenso, whilst my initial comment was a bit gung-ho, I do feel like people are over-reacting, like I’ve said something incredibly controversial.
His state was nothing to do
His state was nothing to do with being overworked and stressed at work. He was severly deprived of sleep having partied all night. Maybe read the article before commenting.
whosatthewheel wrote:
So maybe he shouldn’t have been prosecuted under the drug driving laws then? I know I get it, that’s the law and he shouldnt have broken it but a partially stoned driver would have been unlikely to have killed a child unless they were incredibly tired. I’m sorry to be so blunt but I think that’s the case and I think the science backs me up on that. It might seem like a controversial view (it’s really not) and I know I’ll get a lot of stick for it but someone needs to say it to counter all the nonsense that no doubt will be published in the right wing media about this (road.cc not included).
horace_goes_sking wrote:
Science really does not back you up on that: cannabis has been shown in numerous studies to have a negative effect on motor-coordination, visual function and completion of complex tasks. US states where cannabis has been legalised experienced significant rises in insurance claims for collisions, e.g. 12.5% in Washington, 9.7% in Colorado. Anybody with real-world experience of smoking dope knows that it’s not good for spatial awareness and coordination; just try playing pool after a couple of joints. You’re obviously an intelligent person and your belief that cannabis should be legalised is one with which I have considerable sympathy, but I don’t understand why you feel so moved to try to insist that cannabis didn’t play a part in this tragic incident. Saying it did has nothing to do with being right wing or wanting to demonise cannabis: I’m very fond of a pint or two and I vehemently despise drink-driving as well, those are not contradictory positions. Answer me this, if so inclined: if you knew somebody was “partially stoned” would you be happy to let them drive your child or other vulnerable loved one?
You may have nuanced points
You may have nuanced points egards limits and comparisons with alcohol. But within this context, it’s inappropriate and misses the point . He killed a 9 year old girl due to his selfish ways of exhaustion and intoxication . He only got 6 years – which is nothing for a 24 year old . Even if he serves full term he’s still a young man when he gets out . He should have got 20+ in my opinion …. that little girl had lost her whole life and that family’s pain will be agonising for their entire lives …
This sentence presumably
This sentence presumably still qualifies for parole, so he’ll serve three years and four months as long as he keeps his nose clean inside?
Death by Dangerous Driving Culpability A has a starting point of 12 years and a range of 8-18 years according to the Sentencing Council: the offence is indisputably Culpability A as it fulfils the conditions “prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of dangerous driving”, “driving highly impaired by consumption of alcohol and/or drugs” and “lack of attention to driving for a substantial period of time”. The offence also fulfils four of the “aggravating factors” to be considered when sentencing: “victim was a vulnerable road user, including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists etc”, “driving a goods vehicle, PSV etc”, “Other driving offences committed at the same time as the dangerous driving”, “passengers in the offender’s vehicle, including children”. In the light of all that, how the blazes did the review still not manage to give the bastard even the minimum sentence for Culpability A?
Road.cc wrote:
Seems like they were taking the bus driver’s feelings into account when sentencing, bizarrely.
Fishwick was his defence
Fishwick was his defence barrister.