Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/234

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th November, 2000

 

                                         Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

                                                        Jurats Quérée and Bullen.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Leocadio da Silva Maltez

 

 

1 count of:   driving under the influence of drink or drugs, contrary to Article 16(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956

                    (count 1);

1 count of:   driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 2);

1 count 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 (count 3).

 

Age:    22.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

The Defendant had been indicted for grave and criminal assault and was committed for Assize trial which commenced on 6^th November, 2000, after which he was acquitted.  But for the grave and criminal assault charge, the motoring offences would have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court.  The defendant purchased an old motor car shortly after arriving in Jersey.  He had a Portuguese driving licence but no motor insurance.  He drove the car in adverse weather conditions at night along roads in St. Ouen.  He was intoxicated, failed to negotiate a bend, and crashed the vehicle.  The lowest level of alcohol reading was 50 micrograms per 100 millilitres of blood.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Bad weather, country roads, dazzled by oncoming lights.  The defendant had consumed two pints of lager.  He was 21 at the time of the offence.  He had spent eight months in custody at La Moye pending trial for grave and criminal assault upon a female in respect of which he was acquitted.  Should be given credit for time spent in custody and the fact that he had lost in excess of £5,000 of potential earnings.  Asked for no financial penalty or if there were a fine, to be payable at no more than £30 per week.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:     count 1:     £300 fine, or 2 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment;

                                              15 months' disqualification from driving;

                            count 2:     £100 fine, or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment (consecutive);

                            count 3:     £400 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default of payment (consecutive);

                                              6 months' disqualification from driving.

                            TOTAL:    £800 fine.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:   Bound over to be of good behaviour for 1 year.

 

Court found that generally speaking Crown's conclusions were entirely correct.  However, Court took into account the period of time spent on remand for an offence in respect of which he was found not guilty.  Court felt that the defendant had been punished enough.  Court found special reasons for not disqualifying defendant from driving.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            Maltez, generally speaking, the Court thinks that the fines moved for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol are entirely correct.  To drive under the influence of alcohol is a very dangerous thing to do.  However, the Court takes into account what your counsel has said to us about the period of time which you have spent in custody on remand for an offence for which you were found not guilty.

 

2.            The Court thinks that you have been punished enough.  We are, therefore, going to bind you over to be of good behaviour for a period of 1 year.  What that means is this: you must not commit any other offence during that time or you will be liable to be punished again for these offences.

 

3.            So far as the question of disqualification is concerned, Article 16(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 provides that we must disqualify you unless the Court, for special reasons, thinks fit to order otherwise.  We think that in this case there are special reasons which we have already outlined and we will not impose any disqualification from holding a driving licence.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Nafkha (23^rd May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.