Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC082

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

23^rd April 2010

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Tibbo and Le Cornu.

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Anthony Ratcliffe

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

1 count of:	Taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 4(1) 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 Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4).
1 count of:	Driving a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, contrary to Article 28(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 as amended (Count 5).
1 count of:	Dangerous driving, contrary to Article 22(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 6).
1 count of:	Failing to stop when required by a Police Officer, contrary to Article 51(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 7).
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 52(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 8).
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 51(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 9).
2 counts of:	Assault (Counts 10 and 11).

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At 0105 on Sunday 17th October, 2009, officers saw a black Mazda MX3, which belongs to the defendant's stepfather, turn into Plat Douet Road, swerving across the centre road markings and on swerving back almost hitting the pavement.  They lost sight of the vehicle briefly as they turned their own vehicle, and located it moments later by the exit from Grasett Park onto Plat Douet Road, stationary but with the engine running. 

One of the officers got out to approach the vehicle, but it moved off down Plat Douet Road, slowly at first, without lights, in the direction of Longueville.  The officers pursued it, activated their emergency lights, and estimate they were about 15 yards away and the driver would have clearly seen them.  The vehicle accelerated, turned onto Bagot Road, and again accelerated away, reaching a speed of 50-60mph, as it travelled towards St Helier, swerving across the road and fishtailing as it passed the Bagot Pub, before reaching the junction of Georgetown and La Route du Fort, where it went through a red light and crashed against a barrier and the edge of the granite pavement.  It continued along La Route du Fort, where a second mobile unit saw the Mazda driving at a reasonable speed, on the right hand side of the road, but still with no lights.  They joined the pursuit and followed it along Green Street, up Mount Bingham, down South Hill, back to Havre des Pas and towards Green Island.  The Mazda did not stop at any junctions or take note of the police emergency lights. 

As the Mazda negotiated the corner by the Hotel Normandie, it went around the corner sideways, at speed, on the wrong side of the road, and almost colliding with the wall by the public toilets, and narrowly missing a taxi.  It then accelerated to an estimated 70mph along La Grande Route de la Cote, the start of which is a 30mph limit.  Police found the Mazda at Green Island, where it had crashed into the wall at the entrance to the car park, cracking and distorting the wall.  As they approached they saw the defendant getting out of the car, and on seeing officers he ran towards the slipway, but ran into a large red bin, fell over and banged his head, causing an injury. 

An officer took hold of Ratcliffe, who smelt strongly of alcohol, and saw that he was bleeding from his nose.  The defendant took a deep breath and spat blood straight into the officer's face, then turned and spat over PC Smith.  He was taken to hospital to be treated, and while there a sample of blood was taken.  On analysis this revealed an alcohol level of 205mg of alcohol per 100ml blood, where the legal limit is 80mg. 

The defendant's stepfather said that he had parked his car near the family home on Friday, and had not given anyone permission to drive it.  In interview the defendant made admissions to all charges against him except those relating to the assaults.  He said that he had been out that night drinking with friends and had drunk about ten pints of lager.  He took his stepfather's car, despite not having a licence, insurance, or permission, and when he noticed the police he did not stop as he did not wish to be caught. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, support of family and good work record.  Has started repaying his stepfather for the car. 

Previous Convictions:

Previous convictions for taking and driving away, for driving while disqualified, without a licence or insurance, while intoxicated, obstruction, refusing to obey and grave and criminal assault, and for the last of which he served a period of youth detention in 2007.  Some convictions from 2006 relate to his taking his stepfather's car and crashing it. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	4 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	£50 fine.
Count 3:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 4:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent, plus 36 months' disqualification from driving.
Count 6:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 7:	£400 fine.
Count 8:	No separate penalty.
Count 9:	£400 fine.
Count 10:	9 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 6.
Count 11:	9 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 10 but consecutive to Count 6.

Total:  15 months' youth detention plus 36 months' disqualification from driving, plus £850 fine.

Compensation sought in the sum of £150.27 to the owner of the damaged wall.

Exclusion Order sought for a period of 12 months from 1^st and 7^th category premises.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to run concurrently, but consecutive to Counts 10 and 11 which are also concurrent, making a total of 12 months' youth detention, and a total fine of £850.  Disqualification period of 36 months.  The Court agreed with the Crown's conclusions on Counts 10 and 11 but reduced the sentences with regard to totality. 

Count 1:	4 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	£50 fine or 3 days' youth detention in default.
Count 3:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent, plus 36 months' disqualification from driving.
Count 6:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 7:	£400 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default.
Count 8:	No separate penalty.
Count 9:	£400 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default.
Count 10:	6 months' youth detention, consecutive to Count 6.
Count 11:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 10 but consecutive to Count 6.

Total:  12 months' youth detention plus 36 months' disqualification from driving from 3^rd December, 2009, and £850 fine.

Compensation Order made in the sum of £150.27 to the owner of the damaged wall.

Exclusion order for a period of 6 months from 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category premises to commence upon release from youth detention.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced on 11 counts arising out of an incident on the 17^th October, 2009 when at about 0100 he took and drove away his stepfather's car whilst heavily intoxicated; drove uninsured and without a licence and when disqualified; failed to stop when required by the police to do so and drove very dangerously and failed to stop and report two accidents.  He eventually crashed into a wall and attempted to run away but fell over, injuring his head.  When caught by the police and apprehended, he took a deep breath and spat blood over one officer's face and spat into the face of the other.  On a blood sample being taken, he had an alcohol level of 205 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood against a limit of 80 milligrams, putting him in band D of the Magistrate's Court Guidelines.  The car was written off.

2.        The defendant has a bad record of previous convictions and this is the second time that he has taken his stepfather's car.  His father was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and as a result of violence in the home when he was very young, his mother left, taking him and his sister with her and in due course, commenced a new relationship with his stepfather, with whom he has lived since he was five.  Notwithstanding that this is the second time that he has taken and damaged his stepfather's car, they remain close; the stepfather is supportive and has written a character reference for him. 

3.        Despite learning difficulties the defendant is gainfully employed as a roofer and has a good work record.  He is 20 and therefore comes within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  He is assessed at a medium risk of re-offending but the risk to the public when he is intoxicated is assessed as being very high.  As, unfortunately with much of the youth culture today, he tends to binge drink mainly at weekends and in his own words "when he starts he doesn't know when to stop". 

4.        In terms of mitigation we have listened to the submissions of Advocate Baglin and considered the reports and other documents before us.  The defendant was co-operative on interview and has pleaded guilty.  Save for the assaults on the police he was frank and has expressed remorse.  As recently as his interview with the probation department, he was still denying the assaults on the police, but he has now accepted that they took place.  He has  the support of his family and is in gainful employment. 

5.        We have given very careful consideration to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 but we have no doubt that the totality of the offending here is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  His conduct that night was utterly irresponsible, creating the most serious danger to the public and it is very fortunate that no-one was either injured or killed.  As to the assault on the police, we will repeat what was said in the case of Kelly-v-AG [2001] JLR 108, citing from R-v-Hall [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 62:-

"Every day of the year policemen and policewomen go out to do their duty to safeguard the interests of the public and to protect the public as appropriate.  In the world in which we live, unfortunately, they face damage or the risk of danger whenever they go out on the beat in patrol cars and in all other ways in which police officers go into the community to serve the public".

We want it to be known, as the Court has made it clear on many occasions before, that anyone who assaults the police, particularly in this disgusting manner, will face condign punishment. 

6.        We reject Advocate Baglin's submission that on the authority of Mandel-v-AG 89/33 the sentence for the assaults on the police should be concurrent.  Quoting from page 9 of the Court of Appeal's judgment:-

"It then remains to deal with the question of whether these sentences should be consecutive or concurrent.  In relation to count 5, that concerned with the violent resistance to police officers, we were urged by Miss Nicolle that that sentence should remain consecutive and in that connection we were referred to the case of R-v-Kastercum [1972] Cr. App. R. 298. In the course of his judgment in that case the Lord Chief Justice said in relation to an offence of assault: 'If the judge thinks that the assault on the police officer is really part and parcel of the original offence and is to be treated as an aggravation of the original offence, he can reflect it in the sentence for the original offence.  If he does that it is logical and right that any separate sentence for the assault should be made concurrent.  On the other hand and as this Court thinks a better course in cases where an offender assaults the police in an effort to escape, the sentence for the principal offence can be fixed independently of the assault on the constable and the assault on the constable can be dealt with by a separate and consecutive sentence'".

In our view this case falls within the second category and a consecutive sentence is therefore appropriate. 

7.        We agree with the conclusions of the Crown taken count by count but, having regard to the totality of the sentence sought, which is 15 months, we have reached the conclusion that that is too high and we will therefore reduce the overall sentence by 3 months. 

8.        You are sentenced as follows:- Count 1; 4 months' youth detention, Count 2; a fine of £50 or 3 days' youth detention in default, Count 3; 3 months' youth detention, Count 4; 3 months' youth detention, Count 5; 4 months' youth detention, and you will be disqualified from driving for 36 months, Count 6; 6 months' youth detention, Count 7; a fine of £400 or 1 month's youth detention in default, Count 8; no separate penalty, Count 9; a fine of £400 or 1 month's youth detention in default, Count 10; 6 months' youth detention, and Count 11; 6 months' youth detention.  Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to run concurrently but consecutive to Counts 10 and 11, which are also concurrent, which makes a total of 12 months' youth detention and a total fine of £850 or 2 months' and 3 days' youth detention in default.  You are also disqualified from driving for 36 months with effect from the 3^rd December, 2009.  We remind you that at the end of that period you will remain disqualified until you pass a test.  We also have to remind you that at the end of your youth detention sentence, you may be subject to a period of supervision. 

9.        In terms of the Compensation Order, we order you to pay the sum of £150.27 to the owner of the damaged wall.

10.      Turning to the Exclusion Order, we are satisfied that the two assaults committed on the police were contributed to by the consumption of alcohol and we are therefore going to impose an Exclusion Order which will take effect from the date of your release.  We therefore make the following Exclusion Order prohibiting you, for a period of 6 months from the day that you are released from youth detention, from entering all licensed premises holding a 1^st, 4^th and 7^th category licence or any combination thereof.  We exempt from that the following premises:- the multiplex cinema, the Jersey Arts Centre, the Jersey Airport, the Ferry Terminal at Elizabeth Harbour and the Opera House.  In addition to thinking that that exclusion order is an appropriate additional sentence to impose upon you, we do hope that on your release it will assist you in attacking and dealing with the binge drinking culture that is at the root of all of your offending to date. 

Authorities

Magistrate's Court Guidelines.

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

Kelly-v-AG [2001] JLR 108.

R-v-Hall [1997] 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 62.

Mandel-v-AG 89/33.

AG-v-Passman [2009] JRC 036.