ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
14 August 1998
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats
Myles and Bullen
AG
-v-
Darren Gerald Louvel
3 counts of assault (counts 1, 2, 4);
4 counts of breach of the peace (counts 3, 6, 8, 9);
2 counts of malicious damage (counts 5, 10);
1 count of dangerous driving, contrary to Article 14 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (count 7).
Breach of a 12 month Binding Over Order, made in the Magistrates Court on 7 August 1997, following a guilty plea to 1 count of reckless driving, contrary to Article 14 (as amended) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956.
Age: 24
Plea: Guilty; breach of Binding Over Order admitted.
Details of Offence:
Offending divided into three incidents.First incident involved three assaults including two assaults on the accuseds girlfriend, an offence of acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace and malicious damage. The assaults were all minor involving pushing and pulling, spitting and the swinging of punches which did not connect. Neither victim sustained any injury requiring medical treatment. The second incident involved an offence of acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace.The accused purportedly in an effort to calm down a friend was shouting abusive language and generally behaving in an aggressive manner which was attracting the attention of numerous members of the public in the vicinity of the incident. The third incident involved offences of dangerous driving, two counts of acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace and one offence of malicious damage. This was an episode of "road rage" taking place over a considerable period of time and over a lengthy route from St. Aubins Village via Red Houses, the Airport roundabout, Beaumont into St. Helier, culminating with the victim attending at Police Headquarters in Rouge Bouillon. On two occasions the accused - when the victim’s vehicle was stationary - attempted to gain access and was abusive and on one occasion caused damage to the vehicle via kneeing or kicking the victims vehicle. Involved in undertaking and overtaking vehicles in a dangerous and wholly irresponsible manner causing concern to not only the victim but also other road users.
Details of Mitigation:
Conceded that the accused had an appalling record although it was contended that his record of offending had improved in the last 3½ years. The accused was described as being of above average intelligence but unable to make full use of this because of the history of emotional behavioural disturbance from which he had suffered from an early age. He was described as an unhappy and emotionally isolated young man who became easily resentful and provoked. All of the current offences committed in consequence of a loss of control and temper which he was unable to control. Now recognised that had to learn to control his temper and behaviour if he wished to avoid further offending. Both probation report and psychological report recommended non-custodial sentences involving the use of courses to address the accuseds attitude and behaviour. The need for an individualised sentence was emphasised by counsel for the accused.
Previous Convictions: Appalling record
Conclusions:
Count 1: 3 months imprisonment;Count 2: 3 months imprisonment
Count 3; 1 month imprisonment;Count 4: 3 months imprisonment
Count 5: 1 month imprisonment;Count 6: 1 month imprisonment
Count 7: 6 months imprisonment;Count 8: 4 months imprisonment
Count 9: 1 month imprisonment;Count 10: 1 month imprisonment
Counts 1-5: concurrent; count 6: consecutive; counts 7-10: concurrent with each other but consecutive to other counts.
Breach of Binding Over Order: 3 months imprisonment, consecutive, with 1 year disqualification from driving, concurrent with earlier period of disqualification.
Sentence and Observations of the Court:
The Court felt that a custodial sentence was fully deserved. The Court stated that Louvel ought to be ashamed of his behaviour and this particularly in relation to the dangerous driving charge. His action in following the victim must have caused the victim considerable concern and the manner of his driving was a great risk to other motorists. The Court, however, had full regard to the reports and noted that Louvel was not an unintelligent young man and in the circumstances was prepared to give him a last chance to reform himself. He was, therefore, placed on probation for two years on all counts on the usual conditions and in particular was required to comply with the SMART course.
As regards the period of disqualification, it was Louvels second offence of reckless/dangerous driving and the Court could not allow the accused to think that he could drive in such a manner. However, the Court was aware of the difficulties the loss of licence might cause and therefore reduced the period of disqualification sought by the Crown to one year. A Compensation Order was made in favour of Mr Martin in the sum of £198 to be paid at the rate of £25 per week commencing on 28 August 1998, and there was a default of one month’s imprisonment.
JC Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate RJF Pirie for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: Louvel, the Court has considered very carefully the submissions which have been made by your counsel. The conduct which was described by the Crown Advocate was conduct of which you ought to be ashamed and in particular the actions which you took when you followed Mr Martin in his car must have caused him very considerable concern to put it mildly. At the same time you caused great risk to other motorists, causing them injury and damage to their vehicles.
We have, however, taken very careful account of the reports of the Probation Officer and of the Consultant Psychologist. You are not an unintelligent young man. You have got abilities which we are quite sure you can put to good use if you choose to do so. The Court is going to take at face value what your counsel has told us about -your intentions as to how you are going to conduct yourself in the future and is going to give you a last chance to reform yourself and to keep away from this Court and to obey the law. We are, therefore, going to place you on probation for two years on all the counts on the indictment, subject to the usual conditions that you be of good behaviour and that you be liable to come back before this Court and be sentenced again should you fail to comply with any aspect of the Order. I am not clear whether the Probation Officer requires us to make a specific condition regarding the SMART course but you will certainly comply with all the requirements of the Probation Officer, which will include the requirements to attend these courses.
So far as the issue of disqualification is concerned, this is your second offence of reckless driving and we cannot allow you to think that this sort of driving will go unpunished. We are going to take account of the difficulties which your counsel has described and we are going to reduce the period of disqualification which would otherwise have been very well deserved and we are going to disqualify you for a period of one year on the counts for which disqualification is a discretionary penalty. We hope that you will be able to make some arrangements with your employer which will allow your employment to continue and we expect that that will be the case.
So far as the Compensation Orders sought by the Crown Advocate are concerned we note that your relationship with Miss Marett is continuing. We are not going to make any Compensation Order in that respect and we will allow you to make such arrangements as you and she think appropriate so far as the damage which was caused to her car is concerned. We are going to make a Compensation Order in favour of Mr Christopher Martin in the sum of £198, in default of payment of which you will go to prison for one month. You will pay that compensation at the rate of £25 per week and the first payment will be made on 28 August 1998.
Authorities
Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended: Article 14
R -v- Johnston (1972) 56 Cr.App.R.(S) 859