Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26 October 1999

Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Potter and Le Brocq

AG

-v-

Anthony Francis Scannell

Magistrate’s Court Appeal

Advocate A J Belhomme, on behalf of the Attorney General

Advocate J M Grace for the Appellant

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an appeal in which we have to decide whether to refer the matter back to the learned Magistrate. We have decided against that course of action for the sole reason that inquiries have revealed that it could be a minimum of 28 days before the lower Court is able to reconsider the matter. That is unfair to the appellant. It is not in any way a criticism of the heavily committed Magistrate’s Court.

The facts as explained in the Magistrate’s Court were these: the appellant was stopped in the early hours of Saturday 18 September. His driving was erratic and at one point the car struck the central island of the east/west bound lane on the Esplanade. A sample of his breath was taken less than an hour later and it showed on two samples 77 micrograms in 100 millilitres. That is a high level of intoxication. The appellant was more than twice over the legal limit prescribed by law. He is 23 years old and he was entirely co-operative with the police throughout. There was, perhaps fortunately in the light of his driving, no accident. It later transpired that he was not insured to drive the car. The car had been lent to him. Even at trial he was not sure if he was entitled to drive it.

Certain facts have been drawn to our attention on appeal this afternoon. First, the appellant’s brother had died in August and he was still very emotionally disturbed. On the Saturday in question there had been a conference in Jersey and his firm, Delta Conference Systems Ltd, had worked him hard all day and he had left work at 8 pm. He had had nothing to eat throughout the day. He lives in Pierson Road and had walked to the Royal Yacht where he had drunk some 5 pints of lager before going on to the ‘Warehouse’. He had been drinking there but had stopped at 11 o’clock and thereafter was drinking Coca Cola. A friend who lived in Elizabeth Street had asked the appellant if he would drive him home in his car. The appellant considered that his friend had drunk too much. He was not certain that he had. His friend was in the car when he was stopped and that point was not made clear to the Magistrate. He was insured to drive his own car but his insurance had just expired on that vehicle, and he was a named driver on his employer’s insurance. His friend was licensed to drive. He was a first offender for these offences.

The matters which have been pointed out to us today were not tested before the Magistrate and that is simply because he was not represented. Whilst the dialogue between the Magistrate and the appellant was reasoned and he was not in any way pressurised, Advocate Grace told us that her client found it a "daunting experience".

We now have a sworn affidavit of means. Had he been represented we have no doubt that, on request, the Magistrate would have allowed an adjournment if that had been necessary for such an affidavit to be prepared. Had these additional matters not been revealed to us then following Crown Advocate Belhomme’s careful analysis of the evidence and the relevant law, we would not have allowed this appeal, but we are prepared to do so to a limited extent. Because he was not represented and because he was not invited to ask for representation before his trial proceeded, we shall depart from the guidelines slightly and we are going to impose the minimum mandatory period of disqualification allowed by law of 12 months. Looking at the affidavit of means we will say on the fines under Article 16(A) you will be fined £500 or 14 days imprisonment in default of payment. Under Article 2(1) of the 1948 law, £250 or 7 days imprisonment in default of payment which you have agreed to pay at the rate of £20 per week. Advocate Grace shall have her legal aid costs.

No authorities