Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18 January 1999

Before: F C Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Potter and Le Breton

Magistrates Court Appeal

Christopher Eugene Curtin

-v-

AG

Appeal against a total sentence of 6 months imprisonment, 2 years disqualification from driving, and a £250 fine imposed on 25 November 1998, following guilty pleas to:

1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (count 1: cannabis resin), on which count a sentence of 1 months imprisonment was imposed;

1 count of failing to stop a vehicle he was riding when required to do so by a Police Officer, contrary to Article 26(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 2) on which count a fine of £250, with 12 months to pay or 14 days’ imprisonment in default of payment, concurrent, was imposed;

1 count of dangerous driving, contrary to Article 14 (as amended) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 3), on which count a sentence of 2 months imprisonment, concurrent, with 2 years disqualification from driving, was imposed; and

1 count of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, without reasonable excuse or lawful authority, contrary to Article 27 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 4) on which count a sentence of 6 months imprisonment, concurrent, was imposed.

(On 25 November 1998, following an admitted third breach of a three year probation order, made on 28 May 1997, following conviction on two charges of indecent exposure, the Magistrate ordered that the probation order, with conditions, should continue].

Appeal allowed on count 3, on which a sentence of 2 months imprisonment with 1 year disqualification from driving was substituted and on count 4, on which a sentence of 3 months imprisonment was substituted.

Advocate C M Fogarty for the appellant

Advocate A J Belhomme on behalf of the Attorney General

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: In an appeal of this nature the Court would not wish to interfere unless it is convinced that the sentence is either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

At approximately 19.45 hours on 19 July 1998, the appellant was pursued by police officers in a car. He was riding a motorcycle. He drove through Cranham Court at a fast speed (30 mph) and then drove down the pedestrian pathway which leads to Mont Millais. He was later found and arrested in a room at the James Street Shelter smoking a cannabis cigarette. In the room was the green holdall that the police had seen was on his shoulder when they were pursuing him and in that holdall was a knife. We have seen the knife, although the Magistrate did not see it. For that reason we can state that it was a dagger-type knife and it is clearly sharpened along one edge. The appellant gave no plausible explanation save that counsel put forward in her address to the Magistrate what she had been told which was that having visited his mother in hospital and signed for her to have an operation the appellant was distressed and was collecting his thoughts prior to taking the knife to ‘Newton & Newton’ who are licensed to deal with such weapons.

The Magistrate was entitled, in our view, to be suspicious of such an explanation in the light of the time of the evening, the appellant’s attempts to avoid the police and his previous record.

Despite everything that Advocate Fogarty has so ably said we cannot see that it was wrong in principle for a custodial sentence to be imposed and we say that and we repeat it particularly in the light of the appellants previous background.

However, the cases to which we have been referred by both counsel and the summary which is contained in Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: original text: pp.94-95; (1995-1996) Noter-up p.34; (1996-1997) Noter-up pp.45-46 seem to show that the mere carrying of a knife will usually attract a three month custodial sentence whereas threats and the brandishing of a knife will usually attract a six month sentence to differentiate the one from the other. That six month sentence of course can be extended to cover the particular circumstances of the case.

The dangerous driving down a pedestrian thoroughfare in our view was rightly regarded as serious. Article 14 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (as amended) reads:

The appellant was sentenced to two months imprisonment concurrent and was disqualified for two years, but we have to bear in mind that the police were quite unable to follow his course down the footpath and the law quite clearly gives the Court discretion as to the length of disqualification. His last motoring offence was in 1979. We feel that the period of disqualification was excessive particularly in regard to the guidelines prepared in the lower court and with a view to creating uniformity of sentence.

We are going to allow the appeal to a limited extent and therefore we will substitute on count 3 a sentence of two months imprisonment concurrent and 1 year disqualification. Further, on count 4, three months imprisonment concurrent with the previous sentence.

Authorities

Graham -v- AG (16 January 1995) Jersey Unreported

R -v- Ball (1951) Cr.App.R. 164

Whelan:Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: original text: pp.94-95; (1995-1996) Noter-up p.34; (1996-1997) Noter-up pp.45-46

AG -v- Whiteford (28 August 1992) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Godwin (4 December 1989) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Hesketh (27 May 1998) Jersey Unreported