Jersey Unreported Judgments

Appeal against sentence

[2022]JRC142

Royal Court

(Magistrate 's Court Appeal)

29 June 2022

Carys Ann Ingram

-v-

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Advocate S. Crowder for the Crown.

Appellant in person.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This is an appeal against sentences imposed by the learned Assistant Magistrate on 22^nd October 2020 against the appellant Carys Ann Ingram who had pleaded guilty to breaches of the Covid-19 (Screening, Assessment and Isolation) (Jersey) Regulations 2020, and specifically Regulations 4 and Regulations 8. The Appellant was sentenced with regard to Regulation 4 to a fine of £600.00 (the maximum penalty in law being a fine of £1,000.00) and with regard to Regulation 8 to a fine of £6,000.00 (the maximum penalty in law being a fine of £10,000.00).

2.        The Appellant comes before us in person and makes a number of points. She raised concerns with the way she has suffered at the hands of others on social media and the way that her case, after the event, had been reported. In her application for leave to appeal she also raised issues relating to the prejudice to her finances in that she lost her job. Neither of those factors of course can have any sway before us in determining whether the sentence imposed by the Assistant Magistrate was appropriate or not.

3.        The real thrust of the Appellant's case however, is that the sentence was not wrong in law but was otherwise manifestly excessive. She makes the very straightforward point that when compared with other fines imposed in sentencing at similar times for similar offending, the sentence imposed upon on her was at the top end and therefore might reasonably be said to be excessive.

4.        There are no guideline cases in connection with offending of this nature and we entirely accept that the Assistant Magistrate was faced with scant, if any, guidance on the level of sentencing that it was appropriate to impose. We are cognisant of the fact that it is not for us to tinker with what is otherwise an appropriate sentence, even if we would ourselves have imposed a lower sentence.

5.        There is no doubt but that this Appellant was cavalier and foolish in her approach to the requirements under regulations which were there for protection of the public and keep all of us safe. She prioritised her own desires and wishes over those of her public duty and the public in general in breaching the regulations. On the other hand, she has no previous convictions and on being arrested was entirely co-operative with the prosecution authorities, pleading guilty at the appropriate time.

6.        The Crown, whilst fully accepting that there are no guideline cases, did refer us to a number of comparator cases. The case that is closest in comparison, both because it is closest in time and because it is closest in fact, is the case of AG -v- Shields. This is an unreported judgment and the information is available to the Crown although cannot be discovered in the law reports. We, of course, accept entirely the Crown's characterisation of this case, and it appears to us that the Defendant in the case of Shields which was proximate in time to the offending in the instant case and who had gone on a pub-crawl, was fined respectively £5,000.00 for the Regulation 8 offence and £900.00 for the Regulation 4 offence. Naturally, the Assistant Magistrate did not have that information before him when he imposed the sentence before us today.

7.        The view that we take in the round, is that the sentence imposed upon the Appellant, is excessive and manifestly so when one looks at sentences imposed more generally at the time for this kind of offending. We understand why the Assistant Magistrate reached the point that he did and we do not criticise him for it but we nonetheless feel that it is appropriate to substitute for that sentence, a sentence along the same lines imposed in Shields which appears to us properly to reflect both the aggravating and mitigating factors in that case and indeed in this case. We think that that sentence if imposed in this case would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending coupled with the mitigating factors, especially good character and the guilty plea, and indeed the positive good character that may be raised in favour of this Appellant.

8.        The Crown accepted that the substitution of a fine of £5000 for the £6000 imposed would not be tinkering.

9.        Accordingly, we allow the appeal and we reimpose sentence of £5,000.00 for the Regulation 8 offending.  We maintain the sentence of £600.00 for the Regulation 4 offending. The total fine is therefore £5600.  That is the decision of the Court.

 Authorities

Covid-19 (Screening, Assessment and Isolation) (Jersey) Regulations 2020

AG -v- Shields