Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

11 June 1999

Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and

Jurats Le Ruez and Allo

AG

v

Darren Gerald Louvel

3 counts ofdriving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 9 (4) of the Road Traffice (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended (counts 1,3,5); 3 counts of using a motor vehicle uninsured against Third Party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948 (counts 2,4,6).

Breach of a 2 year binding over order, made by the Royal Court on 14 August 1998, following a guilty plea to 3 counts of assault, 4 counts of breach of the peace, 2 counts of malicious damage and 1 count of dangerous driving. [1998.173]

Age: 25.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Louvel was already disqualified by the Royal Court on 14 August 1998. [1998.173] On 17 January 1999 he was seen by his neighbours driving a silver Ford Escort which belonged to Louvel (counts 1 & 2). Counts 3 and 4 relate to driving on 2 March 1999 in a Ford Fiesta belonging to Louvel which was witnessed by a Police Officer who knew him. Counts 5 and 6 related to driving uninsured on the following day (after he had been charged for the offence of 2 March 1999) and Louvel drove in Ann Street and was seen by his girlfriend’s father.

Details of Mitigation:

Since being placed on probation in August 1998 he had performed well on the SMART course and had generally succeeded in part in improving himself. He had entered guilty pleas for the current motoring offences and had already spent 13 weeks in custody. He had the full support of his father who was willing to have him back home. The real penalty was the disqualification. The Probation Report showed a distressed background. Louvel, through his Counsel, apologised to the Court and expressed remorse and acknowledged that his behaviour could not continue.

Previous Convictions:

A very bad record since 1992 including offences of dishonesty, numerous motoring offences, possession of offences of violence.

Conclusions:

Count 1: 4 months imprisonment

Count 2: 4 months imprisonment

Count 3: 4 months imprisonment

Count 4: 4 months imprisonment

Count 5: 4 months imprisonment

Count 6: 4 months imprisonment, all concurrent

Breach of Probation Order: 8 months imprisonment

TOTAL: 12 months imprisonment

Sentence & Observations of Court:

Counts 1 - 6: conclusions granted

Breach of Probation Order: 5 months imprisonment

TOTAL: 9 months imprisonment

This was a sad case but Louvel had been given every chance. The judgment of the Royal Court in August 1998 had expressly said that the Probation Order was given as a "last chance". The Court expressed concern that Louvel had no idea of what could have happened had he, for example, knocked down a young child. The Court also found it incomprehensible that he drove against whilst disqualified on 3 March 1999 having been arrested and charged the previous day for the same offences.

J G P Wheeler, Crown Advocate

Advocate N J Chapman for the Accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: On the indictment we have three counts of driving whilst disqualified and three of driving a motor vehicle whilst uninsured. These offences occurred between January and March of this year. Louvel has also come before us because he is in breach of a Probation Order made by this Court on 14 August 1998. That indictment contained 10 counts of varying offences. There were 3 counts of assault, 2 counts of breach of the peace, 1 count of malicious damage, all occurring on the same day, and then 2 breaches of the peace, 1 count of dangerous driving and 1 count of malicious damage. He was bound over for two years with a condition of attendance at a SMART course and the ACT programme and was disqualified from driving for one year. And, of course, for all these matters, being in breach, he now comes back to Court.

We do not need to rehearse the facts, they have been carefully examined by the learned Crown Advocate and Advocate Chapman has looked at them with us as well.

In the Court’s judgment of 14 August 1998 the conclusions of the Crown were terms of imprisonment. In that judgment the learned Bailiff said this:

This is a sad case but you have been given every chance. Sadly, you seem to have no idea of what could have happened if, when driving while disqualified and uninsured, you had knocked down a child in the street. But, to drive on one day, to be charged and then commit the same offence on the next day, even in the context of limited abilities is incomprehensible.

We are going to give you some credit for your attempt under difficulty to master the SMART course. But, I have to say this: you must get a grip on your life or you are going to spend a long time in prison.

Stand up, please. We are going, on the present indictment, to sentence you to 4 months imprisonment concurrent on all counts. On the breach of Probation we are going to sentence you to 2 months on the first count; 2 months on the second count; 1 month on the third count; 2 months on the fourth count, 1 month on the fifth count; 1 month on the sixth count; 5 months on the seventh count; 4 months on the eighth count; 1 month on the ninth count and 1 month on the tenth count, but because of what you did on the SMART course we are going to make those concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the sentences imposed on the first count; so you will, in all, spend nine months in prison and that will take into account time you have already served. The Probation Order is discharged and we are going to disqualify you from driving for 3 years and that disqualification obviously runs concurrently with the present disqualification that is in force.

Now, after you have served your time in prison, you have employment, you have some opportunities; please do not let us see you again.

Authorities

AG v Louvel [1998.173] Jersey Unreported.