Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC217C

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

3^rd December 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

James Alistair Giles

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

2 counts of:	Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Counts 1 and 9).
2 counts 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 (Counts 2 and 10).
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 52(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 25(1) 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) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 5).
3 counts of:	Assault (Counts 6, 7 and 8).

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On the evening of 5^th October, 2009, the defendant and his partner were entertaining friends at their home address.  A large amount of alcohol was consumed, including by the defendant.  He decided to go for drive with a friend, Samantha Heard, in his partner's car.  At 11:15pm the defendant was involved in a single car collision at the junction between La Route de Mont Mado and La Route des Issues in John, crashing into a wall.  Only minor injuries were caused but the impact was sufficient to trigger the inflation of the front airbags. 

A nearby resident heard the impact and went outside to see what had happened.  He saw the defendant in the driving seat and Ms Heard standing outside the car.  The witness asked if the defendant or his passenger were hurt and if they had contacted the police.  The defendant told him that they had not informed the police so the witness returned to his house to make the call himself.  On being asked by the police for the registration number of the car the witness went back outside to check.  Once outside he saw that both the driver and passenger of the car had left the scene, running in the directions of St John's Church. 

Police officers went to the defendant's home address at Les Cinq Chênes, which was the registered address of the car.  They attempted to ascertain who was driving the car, but initially had trouble due to the level of intoxication of those present.  However, it was discovered that the occupants of the car were the defendant and Ms Heard.  At about 3am the officers returned to the defendant's home address, saw him in the living room of the house, at which point he ran upstairs.  The defendant's partner then attempted to convince the officers that he was not at home. 

The officers searched the house and found the defendant hiding behind some boxes in an upstairs bedroom.  On being told he was under arrest he became violent and threatened the officers.  He threw a wooden box at one officer, then approached the officers, throwing punches.  In the struggle another officer was thrown to the ground.  As he was led downstairs the defendant continued to shout and swear and make abusive remarks.  In particular the defendant made numerous racist remarks.  The defendant then kicked the front door closed in the face of a female officer whilst shouting obscenities at her.  The commotion caused the four young children asleep upstairs to wake. 

The defendant was placed in the police van and spat at another officer. 

Shortly before 3:40am the Force Medical Examiner was called to the police station in order to take a blood sample.  The sample was taken just before 5am, almost five hours after the incident.  On analysis it was found to contain 126 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, placing him in Band B. 

The defendant was interviewed the following day.  He declined legal advice and denied being the driver of the car.  He claimed that he had gone for a walk in the Maufant area.  He claimed to have only a vague recollection of his arrest and attributed his behaviour to the way the officers were talking to his partner.  He did not   admit the assaults, but conceded that the officers would be unlikely to lie. 

Due to his denials in interview, it was decided to seek further evidence and a DNA swab was taken from the defendant in March 2010.  This was sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Service in the UK along with the airbag.  The DNA recovered from the airbag provided extremely strong scientific support for the proposition that the DNA recovered was from the defendant.  There was a less than one in a billion chance that the DNA came from anyone else. 

The defendant was re-arrested on 10^th June, 2010 and conveyed to Police Headquarters for interview.  He continued to deny that he was the driver of the car.  When confronted with the DNA evidence he stated that there were any number of ways that his DNA could have got onto the airbag. 

2010 Offences

On Friday, 2^nd July, 2010, the defendant's partner was admitted to maternity with complications in her pregnancy.  She contacted the defendant, saying she wanted to see him and their children and asking him to bring her some clean clothes. 

Shortly before 3pm that day a marked police van with number plate recognition was on patrol and registered a car driving along St Saviour's Hill towards St Helier, registered to the defendant's partner.  The officer signalled for it to stop, it did so, and the officer recognised the defendant as the driver.  He appeared to panic and attempt to drive off before the officer had reached the car.  The officer managed to stop the car using hand signals.  The defendant had three small children in the car with him, who he said were his brother's children.  He was arrested and cautioned, to which he made no reply.  Due to his previous behaviour when arrested the defendant was handcuffed to the rear. 

The defendant was interviewed and admitted that he had been driving whilst disqualified and without insurance.  He was asked why he had not asked someone to give him a lift given that he is disqualified from driving and simply replied that he could not and that he was worried about his partner going into labour. 

Breach of Binding Over Order

These offences place the defendant in breach of a six-month Binding-Over Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 26^th February, 2010, in respect of 1 count of common assault on a member of door staff. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; remorse; youth, support of partner.  "Glimmer of hope". 

Previous Convictions:

10 convictions for 53 offences, including 8 counts of resisting or obstructing police, f of assaulting police, 4 counts of driving whilst disqualified, 4 counts of driving without insurance, 3 counts of leaving the scene of an accident, 2 counts of driving under the influence of alcohol.  The defendant has also previously breached 8 orders of the courts. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	6 months' youth detention plus 5 years disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	9 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 3:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 4:	£250 fine or 5 days' youth detention in default, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 5:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 6:	1 month's youth detention, consecutives to Counts 1-5.
Count 7:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent to Count 6 but consecutive to Counts 1-5.
Count 8:	1 week's youth detention, concurrent to Counts 6-7 but consecutive to Counts 1-5.
Count 9:	6 months' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1-8.
Count 10:	9 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 9 but consecutive to Counts 1-8.

Breach of Binding Over Order:  No separate penalty.

Total: 19 months' youth detention plus 5 years' disqualification from driving and £250 fine. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stated that a period of youth detention was justified, and that the Crown's conclusions were correct.  Should the defendant breach the orders being made, the sentence he would face would be that given in the conclusions. 

Count 1:	120 hours' Community Service Order or 6 months' youth detention in default.
Count 2:	120 hours' Community Service Order or 9 months' youth detention in default, concurrent.
Count 3:	120 hours' Community Service Order or 2 months' youth detention in default, concurrent.
Count 4:	120 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.
Count 5:	120 hours' Community Service Order or 4 months' youth detention in default, concurrent.
Count 6:	50 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's youth detention in default, consecutive to Counts 1-5 and concurrent with Counts 9-10.
Count 7:	50 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's youth detention in default, consecutive to Counts 1-5, and concurrent with Counts 9-10.
Count 8:	50 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's youth detention in default, consecutive to Counts 1-5, and concurrent to Counts 9-10.
Count 9:	120 Community Service Order or 6 months' youth detention in default, consecutive to Counts 1-5 but concurrent to Counts 6-8.
Count 10:	120 hours' Community Service Order or 9 months' youth detention in default, consecutive to Counts 1-5 but concurrent to Counts 6-8.

Breach of binding Over Order: No separate penalty.

Total: 240 hours' Community Service Order and disqualification from driving for 3 years plus a 2 year Probation Order.

A driving test to be retaken before obtaining driving licence.

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced for various driving offences and for committing assaults on police officers.  Your record, considering your age, is truly appalling.  The offences which you have committed justify your being given a sentence of youth detention and a considerable sentence at that.  The police are entitled to respect for the job that they have to do; the public are entitled to know that those who are driving cars on the road have passed their test, got a licence and have got insurance and you put them all at risk when you drive in the way that you have done without insurance.  These are really very serious offences. 

2.        The Court has decided, exceptionally and as an act of mercy, not to sentence you to youth detention on this occasion.  It does so because there is just a glimmer of light, a very small glimmer of light, despite your previous offending, in your attitude towards fatherhood.  The Court appreciates that you have not had experience of fatherhood from your own father in the way that you should have done so it should be especially important to you to recognise that, with your own child and with your partner's children, there is an opportunity for you to behave in a way to them that your father did not behave to you.  And you must take that opportunity because if you do not take it then you will be back in this Court and this Court has absolutely no doubt at all that if you breach the terms of the Probation Order that we are going to impose or if you do not perform the community service that we are going to require you to do, then you will be sent to youth detention for these offences. I hope that is absolutely clear to you. 

3.        I add that it appears from the letter which your partner wrote to the Court that she owns a car but she does not drive herself.  It seems to us that it would be sensible to get rid of that car because it is just an encouragement to you to drive the car when you are disqualified from doing so and she should know better than to encourage you to bring the children into her in the hospital and therefore to require you to commit an offence in that way. 

4.        The sentence of this Court is that you should be put on probation for 2 years; you will be required to perform 120 hours' of community service on each of Counts 1-5, concurrent with each other, 50 hours' of community service on each of Counts 6, 7 and 8 which are to be served consecutively to Counts 1-5 and 120 hours' of community service on each of Counts 9 and 10, which are to consecutive to Counts 1-5 and concurrent with Counts 6 and 8.  That means a total of 240 hours' community service.  The periods of youth detention to which you would have been sentenced and to which the actual sentence of community service is a direct alternative as those reflected in the Crown's conclusions.  You will be disqualified from driving for a further period of 3 years.  At the conclusion of the disqualification period you will of course have to take a test.  Do take this opportunity because it is almost certain that you will be sent to prison next time, if there is one. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077.

AG-v-Brown 2000 JLR N-57a.

AG-v-Brown 2000/35.