Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC168

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

21^st August 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Le Breton and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

Aaron Dean Mazurke

Daniel Richard Johnson

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Aaron Dean Mazurke

1 count of:	Driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 52 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 4(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4).

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Johnson was the owner of a motor vehicle which due to the fact that he was a provisional licence holder he had not had insured.  Through a mutual friend Mazurke offered to purchase the vehicle for £100 from Johnson but prior to doing so wanted to take the vehicle for a test drive.  Johnson advised Mazurke that he did not have insurance for the vehicle but did not make any enquires of Mazurke as to his status both in terms of a licence and insurance.  Mazurke took the vehicle for at test drive with a mutual friend as a front seat passenger and Johnson as a rear seat passenger.  Whilst driving around a bend Mazurke lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle struck a granite wall which not only demolished the granite wall but caused damage to a vehicle parked behind the wall which was then forced through another wall of a neighbouring property.  Substantial damage was caused to both walls and the two vehicles.  The three occupants got out of the vehicle and left the scene.

The front seat passenger subsequently contacted the emergency services as he had sustained an injury to his foot and he identified the driver (Mazurke) and the owner of the vehicle (Johnson) to the Police.

Johnson attended voluntarily at Police Headquarters the next day and Mazurke attended voluntarily approximately seven days later.  Both made full admissions.

In consequence of Mazurke's guilty pleas he was in breach of the Community Service Order imposed on the 12^th March, 2009, by the Royal Court.  It is further noted that he was about to be in breach by the Attorney General for non-compliance with that Order in any event.

Details of Mitigation:

He had not taken the chance given to him on the previous occasion by the Royal Court.  Issues in his background which needed addressing but Mazurke lacked the motivation to comply with a period of statutory supervision.  The Crown took into account his co-operation, guilty pleas, youth and lack of relevant motoring offences.  He did not have the benefit of good character.

The Defence did not seek to oppose the Crown's conclusions but sought a slightly less period of youth detention.

Previous Convictions:

Two convictions for 3 offences of affray, attempted possession of a controlled drug and malicious damage.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention.
Count 2:	1month's youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.

All periods to be concurrent with each other and concurrent sentence to be imposed for the breach of Community service Order.

Breach of Community Service Order.

Community service Order to be discharged and in respect of the original offences the following sentence to be imposed:-

Count 5:	5 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 6:	No separate penalty to be imposed.

Total:  5 month's youth detention.

The Crown also sought Compensation Orders on behalf of the owners of the two properties damaged by the vehicle driven by Mazurke in the total sum of £1,344.05.  This sum represented the uninsured losses of the two property owners.

Compensation order in the sum of £672.02 to commence payment 1 month after release from youth detention or 2 weeks' youth detention in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Mazurke was in breach of a Community Service Order imposed on the 12^th March this year by not only re-offending but also by failing to comply with it.  Community service had been imposed for the possession of 9 ecstasy tablets and the Court made it clear on the last occasion that it was taking an unusual course and did not expect to see him again.  He had completed 25 hours with 95 hours extended.  He was no longer considered a suitable candidate for Community Service and there were some reservations that he was an appropriate candidate for a Supervision Order.  When the Community Service was imposed it had an equivalent sentence of 6 months' youth detention.  In mitigation Mazurke did not oppose the Crown's conclusions albeit Defence Counsel sought a small deduction.  He is a young offender and the Court was satisfied that he was unwilling or unable to respond to non-custodial options.  Community Service Orders are not an easy option and the Court expects and requires the defendant to co-operate fully with Probation and to carry out the work.  Failure to do so amounts to contempt of the Order and to the Court.  This would not be tolerated.  The Court accepted the Crown's conclusions.

The Court agreed that the Compensation Orders should be split 50/50 between the two defendants.  The Court gave consideration to the claims made by Mr and Mrs Hall but on balance believed that they were put to serious inconvenience by the actions of the defendants.  Each defendant would, therefore, pay 50% of the respective claims of Mr and Mrs Hall and Mr Tidy.

Compensation Order payment to start 3 months after release at £35 per week for 20 weeks or 2 weeks' youth detention concurrent to commence at the end of the period allowed for payment.

Daniel Richard Johnson

1 count of:

Permitted the use of motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 5).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Mazurke above.

Details of Mitigation:

He was fully co-operative with the Police.  He had his guilty pleas, good character and benefit of youth.  The Defence did not seek to challenge the Crown's conclusions but raised queries on the Compensation Orders sought.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Count 5:

£300 fine or 7 days' imprisonment in default.

The Crown also sought Compensation Orders on behalf of the owners of the two properties damaged by the vehicle driven by Mazurke in the total sum of £1,344.05.  This sum represented the uninsured losses of the two property owners.

Compensation order in the sum of £672.02 to commence payment 1 month after release or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court agreed with the Crown's conclusions and imposed a fine of £300 with a default sentence of 7 days' imprisonment.

The Court agreed that the Compensation Orders should be split 50/50 between the two defendants.  The court gave consideration to the claims made by Mr and Mrs Hall but on balance believed that they were put to serious inconvenience by the actions of the defendants.  Each defendant would, therefore pay 50% of the respective claims of Mr and Mrs Hall and Mr Tidy.

Compensation Order payment to start 1 month after release at £100 per week for 10 weeks, including payment of fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default.

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

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Mazurke.

Advocate M. W. Cook for Johnson.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Mr Mazurke in is breach of a Community Service Order imposed by the Royal Court on 12^th March, 2009, by committing a number of serious road traffic offences on 6^th April, 2009.  The Community Service Order was imposed for the offence of attempting to possess 9 ecstasy tablets which transpired not to contain ecstasy.  When taking what the Court described as an unusual course, it expressed the hope that the Mazurke had learnt his lesson and the Court would not see him again. 

2.        Quite independently of this, the Probation Service report that the defendant's compliance with the Community Service Order has been exceptionally poor.  He has completed 25 hours and has 95 hours left to perform.  He is not now considered a suitable candidate for community service and the Probation Service have serious reservations about his motivation to comply with any period of statutory supervision provided by the Probation Service.  When imposing the Community Service Order the Court indicated that the equivalent sentence of youth detention for Mr Mazurke was 6 months. 

3.        The Crown submit that Mazurke should now serve that sentence reduced to allow for the community service hours he has completed.  As a consequence of that he will lose his job and will therefore be unable to pay the fines that would ordinarily be imposed for the road traffic offences.  The Crown therefore move for concurrent sentences of youth detention for those road traffic offences.

4.        In terms of mitigation, counsel for both defendants have not been instructed to oppose the conclusions of the Crown save that Mrs Pearmain has asked for a small reduction in the youth detention sought for Mr Mazurke.  He does of course come under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey)Law 1994 but we are satisfied that he has failed to respond to a non-custodial penalty and has shown himself to be unwilling to respond. 

5.        Where the Court imposes a sentence of community service as a direct alternative to imprisonment, it allows the defendant to retain his or her liberty whilst at the same time punishing the defendant by requiring unpaid work to be done for the benefit of the community.  Community service is not an easy option but if imposed the Court expects and requires the defendant to co-operate with the Probation Service, to attend whenever requested and to carry out the work.  To fail to do so without real justification is to display an attitude of contempt, not only for the Probation Service but to this Court and we will not tolerate that.  We are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.

6.        Mazurke, taking the current Indictment, on count 1; you are sentenced to 1 month's youth detention, on count 2; 1 month's youth detention, count 3; 1 month's youth detention, on count 4; 1 month's youth detention, all of the above periods of youth detention to be concurrent with each other and concurrent with a sentence we are about to impose for the breach of the Community Service Order.  In relation to the original Indictment, first of all we discharge the Community Service Order imposed on 12^th March, 2009, and in its stead we impose the following sentence: on count 5; 5 months' youth detention, on count 6; no separate penalty.  That is a total of 5 months' youth detention.

7.        In relation to Mr Johnson and the offence to which he has pleaded guilty, we impose a fine of £300 with a default sentence of 7 days' imprisonment. 

8.        Turning finally to the issue of compensation we agree with the Crown that compensation should be shared on a 50/50 basis.  We have given consideration to the claim by Mr and Mrs Hall which Mr Cook felt had been somewhat over egged.  However, on balance, we think that they have been seriously inconvenienced and we therefore accept their claim.  We therefore order each defendant to pay to, firstly, Mr Tidy, £177.51 and secondly, to Mr and Mrs Hall, £491.01.  In the case of Mr Mazurke his payments will start 3 months after he is released at the rate of £35 per week for a period of 20 weeks.  In the case of Mr Johnson, his payments are to start within 1 month at the rate of £100 per week for 10 weeks and that of course is sufficient to cover not only the compensation but the fine that has been imposed upon him.

9.        In terms of default sentences, the default sentence for Mazurke is 2 weeks' youth detention consecutive, obviously to commence at the end of, or to be imposed either as a default at the end of the period given for payment.  For Johnson the default sentence is 2 weeks' imprisonment and that default will only occur after the time we have given him to pay.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Bremer-Hotton and Mazurke [2009] JRC 046.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1949.