Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/150 - Williams v AG [1998] UR 150 (13 July 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/150.html
Cite as: [1998] UR 150
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
13 July 1998
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff and Jurats
Le Ruez and Bullen
Magistrates Court Appeal
Steven Charles Williams
-v-
AG
Appeal against a fine of £800, or 40 days imprisonment in default of payment, imposed in the Magistrates Court on 17 April 1998, following a guilty plea to:
1 count of driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, contrary to Article 16A (1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended.
On 13 March 1998, the Magistrate imposed a mandatory 3 year disqualification from driving, against which there is no appeal)
Appeal allowed; fine quashed and £500 fine substituted.
Advocate N J Chapman for the Appellant
J G P Wheeler, Esq., Crown Advocate
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: This is an appeal by Stephen Charles Williams against a fine of £800 imposed by the Relief Magistrate on the 17 April 1998, for an infraction of the Road Traffic Law by driving with an excessive amount of alcohol in his body. The appellant was stopped on Victoria Avenue in the early hours of the morning and taken to Police Headquarters where he was found to have 81 micrograms of alcohol on his breath, which represents over twice the legal limit. On the 13 March the appellant was presented before the Magistrate and the mandatory disqualification of three years was imposed, against which he does not appeal. The Magistrate remanded the appellant for a month until the 17 April 1998, for the preparation of a Social Enquiry Report. On the 17 April the appellant appeared again before the Relief Magistrate where the facts were outlined. Complaint is made on the Appellant’s behalf by his counsel that the Relief Magistrate failed to give him the opportunity of speaking in mitigation on his sentence. What happened was that the Relief Magistrate received a character reference and there was then the following exchange:
Relief Magistrate:"What’s your disposable weekly income. Just tell me the figure. What have you got left at the end of the week?"
Appellant:"£25 a week now, I’ve just… once a day… I’ve a young girl in Vietnam sir I pay for her schooling so it’s come down a bit."
Relief Magistrate:"That wasn’t a very wise thing to do when you’re facing something like this, was it?"
Appellant:"No, but I was thinking of the young girl at the time."
Relief Magistrate:"£800 or 40 days, you’ll pay it at £20 a week"."
It is clearly of fundamental importance that an accused person, particularly one who is unrepresented, should have the opportunity to tell the Magistrate anything he wishes to say in mitigation of sentence. This, as is clear from the transcript, the Appellant was not able to do. It may be that most of the information available to this Court and certainly the information in relation to his means was laid before the Magistrate. Furthermore, the fine of £800 for a second offence, particularly bearing in mind the level of intoxication could not, in our judgment, be said to be at all excessive. Nonetheless, in order to avoid a possible sense of injustice on the part of the Appellant, we propose to allow the appeal in part. We accordingly quash the fine of £800 and substitute therefor a fine of £500 to be paid at a rate of £20 per week.
Authorities
Bouchard -v- A.G. (18 January 1993) Jersey Unreported