Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC119

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

11^th July 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ronald William Tucker

 

 

1 count of:

Attempting to pervert the course of justice.

 

Age:     37.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Three doormen witnessed a male in an intoxicated state getting into and driving away a motor vehicle.  The three doormen reported the incident to the police who subsequently traced the vehicle and located Tucker.  His appearance fitted the descriptions given by the three doormen.  He refused to provide a breath sample both at the road side and at Police Headquarters.  He was charged with an offence of failing to provide a sample for analysis.

Tucker then approached one of the doormen and offered him £1,000 to retract his statement.  The offer was refused.  The bribe was then followed by threats.  Although not in fear, the doormen decided to retract his statement.  Despite the retracting of his statement, Tucker contacted him on a number of occasions over a total period of 11 weeks offering him other bribes or making threats with a view to getting the doorman to assist Tucker in obtaining an acquittal on the motoring charge.  The doorman eventually reported the matter to the Police.  Tucker was not co-operative in interview denying making any bribes or threats even though some of the threats had been made in the presence of another person.

The Crown took a serious view of such offending and in line with the authorities submitted that only a custodial sentence should be imposed there being no exceptional circumstances.

 

Details of Mitigation:

In the view of the Crown, there was little by way of mitigation other than a guilty plea which had only been entered on indictment.  Tucker had previously entered a not guilty plea and the case before the Magistrate's Court had proceeded by way of an "old style committal".

The defence contended that there were exceptional circumstances.  The offences had been committed when Tucker was under the influence of alcohol and the reports produced clearly showed that he had a serious alcohol problem.  The witness confirmed that he had not felt threatened or frightened by the threats and had not withdrawn his original statement due to the threats.  He had done it because he did not wish to have further hassle.  The defence contended that the bribes and threats made were all "hot air" and they were empty threats.  They were the ramblings of a drunken man who had not in any way appreciated the consequences of his words.  He had now sought help for his alcohol problem.  The Crown's conclusions it was suggested were too high and that there was a direct alternative available of Community Service.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous for motoring offences and one minor public order offence.  He had never previously received a custodial sentence.

 

Conclusions:

2 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

180 hours Community Service Order; 1 year's Probation Order, with condition of attendance at Alcohol Study Group and Offending is Not the Only Choice course.

Perverting the course of justice is always a serious offence as it strikes at the heart of the justice system.  Tucker did not have a serious criminal record.  There was no violence and the witness was not frightened.  The other two witnesses were not approached.  The facts of this case do not fall into the category of offences described in Weston.  Tucker was already undertaking community Service for failing to provide a specimen.  Such offences were serious and the Court would normally have imposed a one year prison sentence.  However, the Court regarded the case as exceptional given Tuckers' personal problem and there was no real threat to the witness.  The Court indicated that it was going to give Tucker a chance.

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D Cadin for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        This is a most serious offence; it strikes at the very route of the system of justice.  You know you were identified by three doormen driving a vehicle while under the influence of drink.  The first of those witnesses, Mr Sheehan, was apparently approached by you and offered first money and then threatened.  He later withdrew his witness statement.  Even after that the witness was approached.  This was, on the face of it, a continuing and protracted approach with threats involved over a period of some 11 weeks.  Then, of course, the witness made a fresh statement.

2.        We have looked at your record.  It is not a serious one it contains substantially only minor motoring offences.  Although we have to say that you were charged with failing to provide a specimen and for that you have been punished.  We know that you sufferer from agoraphobia; and we have heard that you have a severe drinking problem.  We are told - and this stretches belief - that you consume up to 100 pints a week, and that is no doubt compounded by your agoraphobia.  On the face of it that would be that, had not Mr Cadin addressed us in mitigation on your behalf. 

3.        We have to record that there was no violence to the doorman, and even more surprisingly he clearly was not frightened.  That is clear from the cross-examination that Mr Cadin carried out on your behalf.  The other two witnesses were apparently not approached.  We have looked at the case of AG -v- Weston (1980) JJ43 CofA and this case clearly does not fall within the parameters of that case.

4.        We have to say that, because you have already been sentenced inter alia to 45 hours of Community Service, for failing to provide a specimen, normally the two offences would have been taken together and concurrent or consecutive sentences would have been imposed.  So we are taking that into account.  I have to tell you that because of the seriousness of the offence with which you are charged we would normally have had no hesitation in sentencing you to 1 year's imprisonment. 

5.        But we regard this case as exceptional because of the problems that you face and because of the fact that there appears to have been no real threat, in that sense of the word, to the doorman, who was not in any way concerned when the remarks were made to him.

6.        We are going to give you a chance.  We are going to give you a Community Service Order.  You will serve 180 hours; we are going to couple that with a 1 year probation order, so that you can attend such Alcohol and Drug Services as your probation officer shall direct.  I have to tell you this, if you fail the community service order or the probation order for any reason, you will come back to Court and you stand a very good chance of going to prison for one year.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Weston (1980) JJ 43 CofA.

Archbold (2003 Ed'n): pp.2344 - 2346.

C.S.P.: pp.24306/5 to 24308/