Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC094

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

21^st May 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Nicolle.

The Attorney General

-v-

Martin John Wakeling

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

1 count of:	Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic(Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).
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 2).
1 count of:	Failing to give information required by a Centenier, contrary to Article 86(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Wakeling has been disqualified from driving over 12 times since 1991.  At the time of the instant offences he had last been disqualified in November 2005 for a period or 6 months.  However, he only held a provisional licence and had not retaken his test, so remains disqualified. 

On 12^th May, 2009, police officers saw Wakeling driving a blue Vauxhall Astra in David Place.  Not withstanding the fact he only held a provisional licence and therefore required someone else in the car, he was alone and was not displaying "L" plates.  About 30 minutes later the officers saw him walking in Great Union Road.  He was arrested and the keys to the Vauxhall were found in his trouser pocket. 

During interview he admitted owning the Vauxhall but denied driving it in David Place.  He said a friend had been using it but refused to provide a name.  The refusal forms the basis of Count 3.  When asked about the car key in his pocket he claimed that the friend had lost the key to the car and he was taking the spare to him.  Wakeling only admitted the offending once charged in the Magistrate's Court. 

The offending also placed him in breach of an earlier 12 month Probation Order made on 3^rd December, 2008, in relation to 2 offences of larceny from a shop in which Wakeling stole a total of 15 bottles of champagne worth around £600. 

There was a delay in bringing the matter to sentence while other unrelated matters were investigated and prosecuted, resulting in an acquittal.  However, Wakeling spent almost 12 months in custody on remand over this period.  Wakeling was assessed as being at high risk of re-offending. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

33 previous convictions comprising 216 offences, including 3 previous driving without a licence, 7 previous driving whilst disqualified, and 14 offences of driving without insurance.  In addition he has 84 theft and kindred offences. 

Conclusions:

Ordinarily the Crown would have moved for a total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, with disqualification for 3 years and a £100 fine of the failure to provide information.  However, the Crown took into account the lengthy delay and the 12 months that Wakeling had spent in custody in the meantime. 

Count 1:	180 hours' Community Service Order and a 6 month Probation Order plus disqualification from driving for a period of 3 years.
Count 2:	220 hours' Community Service Order and a 6 month Probation Order plus disqualification from driving for a period of 3 years, concurrent.
Count 3:	£100 fine or 2 days' imprisonment in default.

Breach of Probation:- 70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.

Total:  220 hours' Community Service Order and a 6 month Probation Order, plus 3 years' disqualification from driving together with a fine of £100.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Although this type of offence would usually call for a custodial sentence, the Court felt that there was a glimpse of hope which exceptionally allowed them to move the non-custodial alternative. 

Count 1:	120 hours' Community Service Order and a 6 month Probation Order plus disqualification from driving for a period of 12 months.
Count 2:	120 hours' Community Service Order and a 6 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 3:	No separate penalty.

Breach of Probation: 70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent.

Total:  120 hours' Community Service Order and a 6 month Probation Order plus 12 months' disqualification from driving and a driving test to be taken at the end of the disqualification period. 

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

Advocate I. C. Jones for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Wakeling, you fall to be sentenced today on 1 Count of driving whilst disqualified, 1 Count of driving without insurance, and 1 Count of failing to provide information to a Centenier and, because of the commission of those offences, you are in breach of a Probation Order imposed in December 2008 and you fall to be sentenced on the theft of some champagne bottles. 

2.        The Court has looked at your record which is truly appalling.  The Court is very mindful of the fact that these offences, particularly the driving without insurance, is one that the Court has always treated very seriously indeed and it does call for, in normal circumstances, a custodial sentence as indeed was the case when you were last before this Court and given a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for that particular offence.  Frankly there is very little that one can say to criticise the amended conclusions as put forward by the Crown today.  The reality is that you face sentencing for offences which the Court has always treated as being serious offences. 

3.        Nonetheless, there comes a time in peoples' lives when maybe there is a chance, a glimmer of hope.  The Court may be entirely wrong in thinking that glimmer of hope is here for you at the moment.  We hope we are not wrong, but we are prepared to give you the benefit of that hope and that chance and that is the reason for the sentences which we are about to impose which, I should make it absolutely plain, are being imposed on a personal basis in the sense that we have taken into account all the matters which are set out in the social enquiry report and the opportunities which are highlighted there, to persuade you that your truly appalling record should be something of the past.  If you do not take this chance you are a foolish man and your life will go downhill.  You are very fortunate to be in the position you are in today for a number of reasons as I am sure you appreciate.  But we have taken into account all that is in the social enquiry report and the guilty plea which you have entered.  I have to say we have not taken into account any suggestion that there is some unfairness in the way in which the case has been dealt with; the fact that the magistrate might have been prepared to deal with this case himself is not something we take into account because in the light of your record, this is a case which should have been committed to this Court in any event. 

4.        What we are going to do therefore is on Count 1 you are sentenced to 6 months' probation.  On Count 2 you are sentenced to 6 months' probation and 120 hours' Community Service Order and the community service is imposed as an alternative to a custodial sentence of 6 months' imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed.  On Count 3 there will be no separate penalty, and on the breach of probation you are sentenced to 70 hours' Community Service Order, the alternative would have been 2 months in custody and that community service is to be treated concurrently, so it will make a total of 120 hours' Community Service Order.  In addition to those matters you will be disqualified from driving.  We are going to follow through the logic of the glimmer of hope and we are only going to disqualify you from driving for 12 months.  That is a short period but you must take a driving test once the period is up and the purpose of disqualification for that period only is to mark the offence but also to ensure if possible that you make a real effort to take your test, get your insurance and then you will stop getting into this cycle of committing these offences again. 

5.        These are exceptional sentences that are being imposed today and the exceptional part of it especially takes into account the 8 months or so that you have served in custody on remand on a different Indictment where you were actually acquitted of the offences with which you were charged.  The Court does not expect, for the avoidance of doubt, these circumstances to arise in any other case in the future because the sentence which we are imposing is, as I say, truly exceptional.  Do take advantage of it. 

Authorities

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19.

AG-v-Wakeling [2007] JRC 166.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077.