Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Motoring - dangerous driving - causing serious injury by careless driving.

[2017]JRC128

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 August 2017

The Attorney General

-v-

Sarah Louise De La Haye

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Both offences committed around 4:15pm on a weekday afternoon in September 2016 when defendant riding her 125cc motorcycle on a short journey along La Grande Route de la Côte, St Clement from her home to that of a friend. 

Regarding Count 1, there were two elements to the dangerous driving; the first concerned defendant riding westbound through the junction by La Mare slipway, overtaking a vehicle waiting to turn right into La Rue de Maupertuis and narrowly missing another vehicle which had just pulled out from that road, passing it to the offside.  The second element involved a similar manoeuvre a short distance along the coast road at the School Road junction; there defendant overtook a vehicle waiting to turn right causing a vehicle exiting from School Road intending to head west to brake sharply to avoid colliding with defendant's motor cycle. 

Regarding Count 2, the defendant continued her journey toward town, riding close to the crown of the road and, outside the Hotel Ambassadeur, hit a 70-year-old woman pedestrian crossing the road from the steps on the sea side to return to her hotel, knocking her to the ground.  Witnesses described the pedestrian as standing in the middle of the road looking as though she did not know which way to turn or what to do when she became aware of the approaching motor cycle, one referring to her 'freezing like a rabbit in headlights'. 

Defendant maintained she did not see the victim until the last moment.  Witnesses had different opinions as to whether the defendant applied the brakes to her motor cycle before or after impact.  Post-impact the motor cycle collided lightly with a low wall, falling to the ground having deposited the defendant, injured, on top of the wall. 

Victim suffered a head injury, blood pooling on the tarmac around her head.  A CT Scan and X-Rays established she suffered fracture to rear of skull and occipital bone; also severe bruising to right side and back.  Hospitalised for four days.  Post incident suffers mobility issues, total loss of hearing to right ear, partial loss to left ear and loss of sense of smell; balance seriously affected. 

General opinion of witnesses was defendant riding at or around 30 mph speed limit, none alleged excessive speed.  No tyre friction marks visible on the road surface to assist investigation.  A defence expert witness report supporting proposition that defendant's manner of driving eased from 'dangerous' to 'careless' over distance from School Road to Hotel caused Crown to accept a guilty plea to an Count 2 - as opposed to a charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury; while doing so Crown viewed the earlier dangerous driving as an aggravating feature to the Count 2 of careless driving causing serious injury. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea from an early stage, no previous convictions, difficult personal and family circumstances, particularly the recent ill health of a parent with whom she lives. 

Previous Convictions:

No previous convictions.

Conclusions:

Usually offences of this nature, taken together would warrant custodial sentences, yet in light of the exceptional mitigation available, the Crown moved for:

Total: 120 hours' Community Service Order and disqualification from driving for a period of 24 months with a requirement to pass the prescribed test at the end of that period. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        It is clear that you should not have struck this 70-year old victim and it is your fault that you did.  Even though she may have hesitated in the middle of the road, you had ample time to see her before that and you should have seen her and slowed down rather than, as seems possible, you just hoped to pass her. 

2.        Your careless driving in this respect is aggravated by the fact that shortly beforehand you had twice swerved round a car waiting to turn right, nearly causing an accident in one case.  That was clearly a very dangerous manoeuvre which you did twice.  So whilst there is no suggestion of excessive speed or any other aggravating factor, this was a course of poor driving and the accident has had very unfortunate consequences for the victim who, as well as suffering a fracture at the time, has apparently lost the hearing in one ear and her mobility and her general confidence have been affected. 

3.        This is a serious case of poor driving but there is much personal mitigation.  You have pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility, you have no previous convictions of any sort, in particular it is more than you have no previous convictions, you have an excellent character in so many ways.  We have read the many, many references.  They speak very highly of you, saying you are a caring person and you do voluntary work when you can with organisations like Durrell.  You have much to offer.  You had a challenging upbringing as we have read and at present you face particular health challenges or rather your family does, particularly given the difficulty with your father's health.  It is clear that you are suffering yourself.  We have read the psychological report, it recommended treatment and we are pleased to hear that you have been to the mental health team and are hopefully benefitting from their treatment.  We hope you can continue to address that. 

4.        Now the Crown says that were it not for these difficult personal issues facing you and your family they would have moved for a custodial sentence.  We think that would have been the correct thing to do because of the combination of the dangerous driving beforehand and the circumstances of the accident itself.  Even though this is not a case where there is excessive drink or excessive speed or people using their mobile phones, the combination of what happened before and what happened when you did not see or react to the victim in the road, make it such that a custodial sentence would have been appropriate.  But we do agree with the Crown that in the particular circumstances of this case a prison sentence is not necessary; so we are going to grant their conclusions. 

5.        On Count 1; 90 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 120 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, because we have treated the dangerous driving on Count 1 as an aggravating feature of Count 2 and one should not therefore double count.  That is a total of 120 hours which we say is the equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment which is what would have been the sentence had we imposed a prison sentence.  I must warn you that you must carry out this community service to the letter, you must turn up when you are told to, work hard, and work conscientiously because if you do not you will be brought back here and then you can be re-sentenced and possibly sent to prison, do you understand. 

6.        You are disqualified from driving for a period of 2 years from 30^th June, 2017, which is the date on which your interim disqualification started on indictment and you will have to retake a test after that period. 

Authorities

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Magistrate's Court Guidelines.