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 >> AG v Hacquoil [2005] JRC 025 (03 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2005/2005_025.html Cite as: [2005] JRC 025, [2005] JRC 25 |
[New search] [Help]
[2005]JRC025
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
3rd March, 2005
Before: |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Morgan. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Conrad David Hacquoil
Magistrate's Court Appeal
Appeal by the Attorney General by way of case stated under Article 18, Magistrate's Court (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1949. Mistake on the part of the Magistrate not to impose a mandatory 3 year driving disqualification for a second offence committed within 10 years as required by Article 16 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956.
Court substitutes 3 year disqualification. Appellant granted costs under Article 20 of the said Law.
Advocate J. Hawgood for the Attorney General.
Advocate A. Pinel for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. On the 24th January, 2005, the defendant pleaded guilty to one offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst he was unfit through drink or drugs contrary to Article 16 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956; in this particular case it was through drugs. He was fined £350 and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.
2. Article 16 (2) of the 1956 Law as amended provides as follows:
3. Article 16 (3) says:
4. The record of the defendant shows that on 3rd March, 1997, he was convicted of an offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs contrary to Article 16. He therefore falls squarely within the provision which says that for a second offence there is a mandatory minimum disqualification of three years.
5. Unfortunately this was not noted by anyone in the Magistrate's Court at the time and therefore the Assistant Magistrate passed the disqualification of 12 months. The Attorney General now appeals by way of case stated. It is clear that the sentence was erroneous in law. The Assistant Magistrate had no choice but to impose the disqualification of three years and therefore we have no alternative but to allow the appeal and order a disqualification for three years. However, this is clearly no fault of the defendant's and therefore he will have his costs.