Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Motoring - dangerous driving - failure to provide a specimen.

[2018]JRC009

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 January 2018

Before     :

Sir William Bailhache., Bailiff, and Jurats Sparrow and Christensen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Joshua Gary Warder

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

1 count of:	Dangerous driving, contrary to Article 22(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Failure to provide a specimen, contrary to Article 30(7), as amended, of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At approximately 1am on Sunday 12^th February, 2017, the defendant drove his silver Renault Clio Sport ("the Clio") from the Green Street roundabout and headed in an easterly direction along La Route du Fort.  He then drove onto Victoria Road in the direction of Georgetown Garage.  Despite the hour, he had not illuminated the vehicle headlights.

The defendant's driving was witnessed by several other road users as he travelled down La Route du Fort and onto Victoria Street.  These witnesses described the defendant as driving at "high speed" and that the Clio was swerving on the road, narrowly missing a collision with some traffic lights at the Georgetown junction.  Mr N, one of the drivers thought that the defendant might crash so he drove on to Green Street roundabout and turned around and drove back towards Georgetown.  The driver was flagged down and saw the Clio in the middle of the road with a crushed front end.  The defendant had collided with a low wall adjacent to Georgetown Garage and spun into the road.  No other vehicles or persons were involved in the accident, but CCTV later showed that moments earlier pedestrians had been walking in the exact same spot.  The Clio was completely written off. 

Mrs N, who had been in the car with her husband, attended on the defendant as he was sat in the Clio after the crash.  She could smell alcohol and formed the belief the defendant had been drinking.  Two police officers who also attended at the scene noted that the defendant's speech was slurred and that he smelt heavily of intoxicants, they formed the opinion that the defendant was drunk.  The defendant was cut out of the Clio and transported to Accident and Emergency and it was not possible for a roadside breath test to be carried out.

Police subsequently attended hospital to carry out the drink drive procedure.  They could smell intoxicating liquor on the defendant's breath.  The defendant was arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and cautioned.  The police then requested a sample of blood and warned the defendant that failure to provide a specimen would render him liable to prosecution.  The defendant refused to provide a sample and stated "I would rather speak to a lawyer who knows what's going on."  Because the defendant required further treatment the police de-arrested him and left him in the care of hospital staff.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; remorse; delay.

Previous Convictions:

Conviction before the Youth Court for driving without a licence and driving without insurance in 2010.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment, 3 years' disqualification from driving, with a requirement to retake a driving test.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, 3 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' imprisonment and 3 years' disqualification from driving, with a requirement to retake a driving test. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	60 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment in default and 12 months' disqualification from driving, with a requirement to retake a driving test.
Count 2:	60 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment in default, consecutive.

Total: 120 hours' Community Service Order or 4 months' imprisonment in default on each count (8 months in total) if not performed and a 12 month disqualification from driving with a requirement to retake a driving test.

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You are charged here with driving dangerously and with failing to provide a specimen of blood when required to do so.  The circumstances of the dangerous driving were that you were driving home at 1am on Sunday morning, about eleven months ago to the day, and you did not have your headlights on; and you were driving, on your own admission, faster than the speed limit although the extent of that speed is not established.  You lost control and had a serious crash. 

2.        In so far as the refusal to give a sample is concerned you assert that you were dis-orientated after the collision but the fact is that you were not so disorientated that you were able to tell the police at the time that you would rather speak to a lawyer before giving the sample which is your obligation. 

3.        Before going any further we would just like to say that we have noted the actions of the witnesses who turned round to follow you from the traffic lights at Georgetown and the wife, being a qualified first-aider, was going to see if she could help.  The Court would like to commend them for their good citizenship. 

4.        The Crown has relied on causing death by dangerous driving cases; we consider these fall into a different category.  The fact of taking a life means that the Court has to consider directly the impact of the criminality on an innocent family.  Nonetheless the aggravating factors which are listed in the Court's judgment in the case of AG-v-Luis [2007] JRC 233 at paragraph 11 are relevant to the Court's assessment of culpability.  We have had regard to the sentencing guidelines in the Magistrate's Court where the majority of these offences are dealt with. 

5.        This was some very dangerous driving, you could have killed or injured yourself or others.  It was at a speed in excess of the limit, without lights, in a built up area, and the fact that you lost your temper is absolutely no excuse.  It actually probably makes the driving worse.  Your refusal to give a sample is a serious offence and also passes the custody threshold.  In both cases custody could have been justified. 

6.        We have had regard to the mitigation advanced by counsel including your guilty plea and the time it has taken for this matter to come to Court. 

7.        The sentence of this Court is that you should serve 60 hours' Community Service on each count, consecutive, making a total of 120 hours' community service and there would be 8 months' imprisonment in default if you do not perform it.  I make that quite clear, if there is any problem at all in the performance of community service you are liable to be brought back to this Court and sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment on each count.  You will also be disqualified from driving from today for a period of 12 months and at the end of that period you will have to retake the driving test.  In fixing that disqualification period we have had regard to the fact that you have been disqualified already since September and that you have not driven from the period of the accident for two months as your counsel has indicated. 

Authorities

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

AG-v-Pacheco [2016] JRC 220A.

AG-v-Hall [2013] JRC 248.

AG-v-Luis [2007] JRC 233.

R-v-Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996.

Magistrate's Court Guidelines extracts.