BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/67 - Temple v AG [1998] UR 67 (1 April 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/67.html Cite as: [1998] UR 67 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
1 April 1998
Before: Francis Charles Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff
and Jurats Potter and de Veulle
MAGISTRATE’S COURT APPEAL
(Relief Magistrate)
Clive Hilliard Temple
-v-
AG
Appeal against a sentence of 2 months disqualification from driving imposed in the Magistrates Court on 9 December 1997, following a guilty plea to:
1 Count of driving a motor vehicle above 20 mph (namely 33 mph) on a road specified in the second schedule to the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) (Jersey) Order, 1996, in contravention of Article 13 A (1) (b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended.
(The appellant was also fined £100 or 10 days imprisonment in default of payment on the same count. The fine has been paid and no appeal is made against this part of the sentence.]
Appeal allowed; sentence of disqualification quashed.
Advocate RJ Renouf for the Appellant
Advocate AJ Belhomme on behalf of the Attorney General
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: In a speed check in the 20 mph zone in St. Peters Village just before 1.00am, on Saturday, 27 September 1997, the Appellant was driving at 33 mph when stopped. He represented himself. The Centenier outlined the facts and then this exchange took place:
"JUDGE TRICOT: Stand up. Do you have anything to say to that?
DEFENDANT: No. Sir.
JUDGE TRICOT: You’ve got quite a record of motoring offences here. You will be fined £100 and you will be disqualified for two months. £100 or ten days. How are you going to pay?"
The Appellants record, in fact, shows a speeding offence in 1995 when he was fined £36. In 1990, he was cautioned for driving without due care and attention. Driving without seat belts in 1988 led to a fine of £10; and for speeding in 1986 he was fined £20. All these were the result of Parish Hall enquiries and this was his first appearance in the Magistrates Court.
Mr Renouf says that the Assistant Magistrate should at least have heard Mr Temple on whether he used his car for his employment. Perhaps at that point we need to cite the words of the then Deputy Bailiff in the case of Attorney General -v- Peter Francis Kane:
"The first and foremost consideration in deciding the appropriate sentence is the public interest and one of the ways in which this interest is served is by imposing a sentence which will deter not only the person convicted but also other persons from committing offences of a similar nature. It would be a complete negation of this principle if it were to be held that a person who requires a driving licence for the purpose of his living is entitled to special consideration."
We share the view that the use of a vehicle for employment purposes should not sway the Magistrate unduly, but he might, nevertheless, have had that evidence before him. We also do not know whether the Magistrate might have exercised his discretion differently had he been aware of the immense amount of voluntary work carried out by the Appellant, particularly as he runs evening classes for young people at Victoria College whilst living at St. Brelade.
We do not take the view that his record was so bad that it called for disqualification. This was a first appearance before the Magistrates Court and we will allow the appeal to the extent of quashing the disqualification.
Authorities
A.G. -v- Kane (1950-1966) JJ 501
Colligny -v- A.G. (19 January 1998) Jersey Unreported
Reid -v- A.G. (1994) JLR N.11
