2001/252
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
17th December 2001
Before: |
Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and |
Neil Anthony Davey
-v-
The Attorney General
Magistrate's Court Appeal
Appeal against sentence of 90 hours' community service with 12 months' disqualification from driving, imposed on 18th October, 2001, following guilty plea to 1 count of driving whilst disqualified.
Appeal dismissed.
The Appellant on his own behalf.
Advocate C. Yates for the Attorney General.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. Neil Anthony Davey was convicted by the Assistant Magistrate of driving whilst disqualified on 18th October, 2001. He was sentenced to 90 hours' community service and disqualified for a further period of 12 months. He now appeals against that sentence of disqualification on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.
2. The appellant is a young man of 24 who has a bad record of previous convictions. He has appeared before the Courts on many occasions and has been sentenced to custodial and non-custodial penalties. He has, on three previous occasions, been disqualified from holding a driving licence, the last being on 3rd April, 2001, when he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and disqualified for six months from holding a driving licence for an offence of dangerous driving. We note in passing that the record erroneously states that he was convicted of reckless or dangerous driving. These are alternative offences and we are taking the view that the conviction was for the lesser offence of dangerous driving.
3. The disqualification would have expired on 3rd October. On 31st August he was stopped by the police whilst driving a van belonging to his employer along Seaton Place. He gave the explanation to the Magistrate that he thought that the disqualification was subject to remission of one-third like the prison sentence which he had served and that he was accordingly entitled to drive.
4. His explanation to the Probation Officer was slightly different in that he asserted to her that he thought he was free to drive and did not realise that he had to resit his driving test in order to regain the licence.
5. The learned Assistant Magistrate did not believe either of these explanations and we think that he was right. The appellant told us that he has 10 GCSE's and other reports suggest that he is not an unintelligent young man. We have no doubt that the appellant knew that he was not entitled to drive and took a calculated risk that he would not be caught.
6. Generally speaking the offence of driving whilst disqualified is punished by imprisonment. To ignore an order of the Court is a serious matter. To his credit the appellant admitted to the Assistant Magistrate that he had been warned in April that he would face imprisonment if he drove whilst disqualified. In fact the Assistant Magistrate, having considered a social enquiry report, sentenced the appellant to perform 90 hours' community service the equivalent of three months' imprisonment and imposed the disqualification which is now subject to appeal.
7. Was this disqualification manifestly excessive? We might ourselves perhaps have imposed a slightly lower disqualification but we cannot find that it was. The appellant was fortunate not to have been sent to prison and the disqualification was part of the penalty that the Assistant Magistrate thought appropriate to the case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No Authorities