ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
16 August 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Le Brocq and Tibbo
Magistrate’s Court Appeal
Nigel Wilfred Peter Pipon
v
AG
Appeal against a sentence of a £250 fine or seven days imprisonment in default of payment, with three months disqualification from driving (suspended, pending determination of appeal) imposed on 24 June 1999 following a guilty plea to one count of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended
Appeal allowed; period of disqualification from driving reduced to one month
Advocate R Tremoceiro for the appellant
Advocate A J Belhomme on behalf of the Attorney General
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an appeal against a sentence of disqualification from driving for three months imposed by the Magistrate on 24 June 1999.
The offence occurred on 26 January when a police car stopped at the junction of Croix du Lion and La Grande Route de St Ouen, and saw the appellant driving his car at speed. It was about midnight. The officers attempted to follow, but did not catch up with the appellant’s car. They eventually caught up with the appellant at his home.
In the course of the journey, about 1.4 miles, there were road works, and near St Ouen’s Village the pursuing police car considered that close pursuit at that speed was too dangerous. There was a trench in the road where the police car had to pull over to its offside.
The appellant has lived at his address at the Route de Marais for some twenty years and knows the road and it’s conditions extremely well. He readily admitted to driving at excessive speed - between 60 and 65 mph at times in the village - which is in a 30 mph zone. The Magistrate referred to the cross-roads near St Ouen’s Manor as a known danger spot.
The appellant admitted that he was preoccupied because he had to attend a court hearing as a witness the next day. He had been drinking but was within the limit. He was 38 years old and during the journey saw no pedestrians. He was originally charged with dangerous driving, but agreed to plead guilty to careless driving under Article 15 after consultation with the Centenier and Advocate Tremoceiro.
The Magistrate saw the appellant’s record, which appeared to play no part in his decision. The learned Magistrate heard all the mitigating circumstances, in particular the problems that disqualification would cause the appellant at his work. His written reason set out in his very accurate hand-written note, amplifies the judgment, it says:
The degree of criminal culpability is such as to require a short period of disqualification, despite the mitigation. Persons who drive along dark country roads in preoccupied states of mind, at excessive speeds, cannot keep the careful lookout for any sudden emergencies, let alone react when they occur…"
That is very helpful for us to understand the basis of the Magistrate’s decision.
It is trite law for us to say that this Court will not generally wish to interfere unless the sentence imposed is either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. See Graham -v- A.G (16th January, 1995) Jersey Unreported.
The other way of putting that is that this Court will not alter a sentence on appeal merely because the members of this Court might have passed a different sentence.
Was the sentence wrong in principle? We cannot agree that it was. The learned Magistrate was entitled to use this sentence to deter others. Perhaps we can say with deep respect to the learned Magistrate that he might have chosen a more appropriate case to make his very valid point.
We agree with Mr Tremoceiro that the period of disqualification was excessive. There is nothing to suggest that the Magistrate took previous offences into account. The last offence was, after all, in 1987.
In the view of this Court, an appropriate period of disqualification should have been one month, and accordingly we quash the three-month period, and substitute one month. To that extent the appeal is allowed.
Authorities
Graham -v- A.G ( 16th January 1995) Jersey Unreported.
Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended - Articles 8, 15 and the First Schedule.
Mercier -v- Attorney General (1989) JLR N 10
Attorney General -v- Carré (1990) JLR N 18
Attorney General -v- Kane (1965) JJ 501
Temple -v- Attorney General (1st April, 1998) Jersey Unreported.
R -v- Halliday (15th December, 1997) Unreported Judgment of The Court of Appeal of England: No. 97/6136/X2
R -v- Ball (1951) 35 Cr. App.R. 164.
Butterworth’s Road Traffic Service (1998 Ed’n): Vol 1: S.4: Disqualification:
paras 4, 71-81.