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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Jersey Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> Harris -v- AG 18-Aug-2006 [2006] JRC 113 (18 August 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2006/2006_113.html
Cite as: [2006] JRC 113

[New search] [Help]


[2006]JRC113

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18th August 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Allo and King.

Sophie Alexandra Harris

-v-

The Attorney General

Appeal against a conviction by the Magistrate's Court on a charge of:

1 count of:

Driving a vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Advocate M. C. Goulborn for the Appellant.

A. J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The appellant, Sophie Alexandra Harris, has appealed against a sentence imposed by the Magistrate for an offence of driving whilst under the influence of drugs.  The Magistrate imposed a sentence of 45 hours' Community Service and disqualified the appellant for holding a driving licence for a period of two years.

2.        It is against the period of the disqualification that the appellant seeks to appeal.  The underlying facts are not in dispute.  There was a road traffic accident which happened during the evening of Thursday 18th May, 2006.  The appellant was driving her motor car along Albert Street and collided with a parked unattended vehicle.  There was no apparent reason for the accident.  The Police attended.

3.        The appellant was not found to be under the influence of alcohol and the breath test was negative.  She was taken to the police station where she was unable to give a specimen of blood on account of her veins having been affected by drug abuse.  She was seen by the Police doctor who concluded that she was unfit to be driving as a result of the consumption of drugs.

4.        There was moderate damage to both motor vehicles.  Importantly, the following morning the appellant could remember nothing of the accident.  She recalled parking her car in Dorset Street during the afternoon, but had no recollection of returning to her car nor of driving it away, nor as we have said, of the accident. 

5.        It therefore fell to the Magistrate to assess the level of intoxication so that he could pass the appropriate sentence in relation to the relevant scale.  There was no medical evidence before the Magistrate other than the evidence of the Police doctor that the appellant was intoxicated through the consumption of drugs and unfit to drive.

6.        The Magistrate was entitled, in our judgment, to take account of all the agreed facts which have been outlined.  It is fortunate, in our judgment, that the collision took place with a parked car rather than some individual who might have been lawfully in the vicinity.  The likelihood is that the appellant took an injudicious cocktail of drugs in the form of sleeping tablets and anti-depressants, which had a very adverse effect upon her.  The Magistrate reached the conclusion on all the evidence that the appellant was heavily intoxicated and it seems to us that there was ample evidence upon which the Magistrate could have reached such a conclusion.

7.        Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a number of important mitigating factors and suggested that the Magistrate did not pay due heed to them.

8.        The appellant is a young woman, who is a first offender, she was fully co-operative with the police, she pleaded guilty to the charge, she has had an unhappy background which has led to the abuse of drugs but she has been doing her best to overcome that addiction.  We think that the Magistrate took all these matters properly into account in the sentence at which he arrived.

9.        A complaint was made by Counsel of some remarks made by the Magistrate after he had imposed sentence.  It is true that he did make some avuncular remarks of a general nature at the end of his judgment, but we do not think that they were anything other than well intentioned words of advice even if they were not interpreted in that way.

10.      We consider that there are no grounds upon which we can find that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

No Authorities

 


Page Last Updated: 26 Jun 2015


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2006/2006_113.html