ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
12 July 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Myles and Bullen
Magistrate’s Court Appeal
Tania Louise Paul
v
AG
Appeal against a total sentence of a £550 fine, with 12 months’ disqualification from driving following guilty pleas to the following counts:
1 count of driving uninsured against Third Party Risks, contrary to Article 2(1), as amended, of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948, on which count a fine of £400 or 1 week’s imprisonment in default of payment with 12 months’ disqualification from driving was imposed; and
1 count of aiding/abetting/counselling the commission of an offence under Article 3 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, on which count a fine of £150, or 3 days’ imprisonment, consecutive, in default of payment, with an endorsement of the driving licence was imposed.
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed, and substitute sentence imposed to extent of replacing 12 months’ with 3 months’ disqualification from driving.
Advocate A J Belhomme on behalf of the Attorney General
Advocate C Deacon for the appellant
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Generally speaking it is not for this Court to substitute its own view for that of the Magistrate except where that decision is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It is on the second of these grounds that the appellant appears before us this morning.
Miss Paul was jointly charged with Stuart George Whitcombe, who is her partner. Miss Paul had recently been offered a post as a district nurse: - she works at the General Hospital - and her car would be essential to enable her to visit patients in the community if she were to take up that post. That was the position when the case was heard before Judge Olsen. Miss Paul is 24, born in Jersey; her partner is 23.
On Sunday, 18th April, Miss Paul had returned home from a twelve hour night shift at the hospital. Mr. Whitcombe had to attend to perform community service, which formed part of a probation order made against him for - his only previous offence - breaking and entering last year. Apparently he had only four hours left to complete the order. Miss Paul had a previous conviction of a very minor nature: she had failed to conform to a road traffic signal.
On the morning in question Mr. Whitcombe had overslept. He asked Miss Paul to drive him to where the community service took place. She was naturally, after a 12 hour shift, far too tired and she allowed him to drive her car. Perhaps she was not thinking straight. Be that as it may, Mr. Whitcombe had no driving licence and, sadly, on his return from fulfilling his community service he had an accident. It was his fault. The car that he hit was owned but not driven by a Centenier. The police were called and Mr. Whitcombe immediately told the police that he had no licence. This was the first time that he had driven the car.
Miss Paul was charged with an infraction of Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1949 and of Article 44(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended. These offences are basically permitting the use of a motor vehicle on the roads when the user is without third party insurance and aiding and abetting Mr. Whitcombe to drive without a licence.
On the first charge Miss Paul was fined £400 and disqualified for twelve months. On the second charge she was fined £150 and her licence was endorsed. The fine was to be paid at £60 per week. The damage to the car was £1,129.86 and has been paid for by both defendants who took a loan to do so.
Miss Deacon has now brought us up to date this morning on the facts: because of the disqualification Miss Paul has lost the opportunity to take up the post as a district nurse but apparently another similar position has now been offered to her.
Crown Advocate Belhomme has - as one would expect - prepared for us a reasoned written argument in law and in fact. From that we learn immediately that there is in law nothing to distinguish culpability between Miss Paul and Mr. Whitcombe (see Grove -v- AG (21st March, 1994) Jersey Unreported). We have also seen and studied the guidelines set out for the purposes of commonality by the Magistrate for those judges who appear in his court. Essentially the points there are that people who drive when they are disqualified or uninsured are a great risk to the public, and particularly in the case of motor insurance where, if there had been an accident, the consequences to an injured party might have been extremely serious.
In this case there was no injury and relatively minor damage. Driving without insurance can take many forms and the facts of this case - the spur of a moment decision by an exhausted nurse returning after a night’s shift - must have affected her judgment. It is of course essential that others are deterred from committing offences of a similar nature and that is the reason why the penalties are relatively high even for first offenders. However, Mr. Belhomme agrees that disqualification is not mandatory under the law. In the particular circumstances of this unusual case we are going to reduce the disqualification to three months from the date of disqualification and the appeal is allowed in that regard.
Miss Deacon shall have her legal aid costs.
Authorities
Grove -v- AG (21 March 1994) Jersey Unreported.