Jersey Judgment

AG v Corcoran and Sutcliffe

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court considered the offences serious enough to warrant youth detention, but varied the conclusions to fit the justice of each case: Sutcliffe, who had served substantial remand time, received youth detention and fines with driving disqualification; Corcoran received probation with community service and disqualification, and the prior attendance centre order was discharged.

Court disposition

Sentenced with different outcomes for each defendant; Crown's request for continuation of the attendance order was refused and the order discharged.

Orders

  • Pascal Peter Corcoran: count 1, 3 months' probation with 40 hours community service and 12 months' disqualification from driving; count 3, £50 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default, 2 weeks to pay; count 7, 3 months' probation with 40 hours community service and 12 months' disqualification from driving concurrent.
  • Dominic Sutcliffe: count 2, 3 months' Youth Detention and 12 months' disqualification from driving; count 4, £50 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default of payment concurrent; count 5a, £100 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default of payment consecutive; count 6a, £50 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default of payment concurrent; count 8, 3 months' Youth Detention and 12 months' disqualification from driving concurrent.
  • The 18 hour attendance order imposed on 10th October, 1997 was discharged.

02

Material facts

Parties

The Attorney General

Applicant Counsel: Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Pascal Peter Corcoran

Defendant Counsel: Advocate A.P. Roscouet for P.P. Corcoran.

Dominic Sutcliffe

Defendant Counsel: Advocate C.M. Fogarty for D. Sutcliffe.

Amounts and remedies

  • Corcoran Age: 18
  • Sutcliffe Age: 20
  • Corcoran Remand Time Equivalent (months and Days): 2
  • Sutcliffe Remand Time Equivalent (months and Days): 7
  • Sutcliffe Remand Time Equivalent Days: 29
  • Corcoran Fine on Count 3: GBP 50
  • Sutcliffe Fine on Count 4: GBP 50
  • Sutcliffe Fine on Count 5a: GBP 100
  • Sutcliffe Fine on Count 6a: GBP 50
  • Community Service Hours: 40
  • Disqualification Months: 12

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Sentencing / Judgment and Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown moved for youth detention sentences, disqualification from driving, fines, and that the existing 18 hour attendance order should continue to run.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    JUDGMENT

    Opportunist crimes of taking and driving a vehicle without authority can be deadly dangerous, particularly where no insurance exists to cover harm caused to others.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court considered the offences serious enough to warrant youth detention, but varied the conclusions to fit the justice of each case: Sutcliffe, who had served substantial remand time, received youth detention and fines with driving disqualification; Corcoran received probation with community service and disqualification, and the prior attendance centre order was discharged.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court emphasised the public danger of driving a vehicle that does not belong to the driver, especially under the influence of alcohol and without insurance.
  • The Court observed that neither defendant had injured members of the public, but harm could have been far worse.

Court disposition

Sentenced with different outcomes for each defendant; Crown's request for continuation of the attendance order was refused and the order discharged.

  • Pascal Peter Corcoran: count 1, 3 months' probation with 40 hours community service and 12 months' disqualification from driving; count 3, £50 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default, 2 weeks to pay; count 7, 3 months' probation with 40 hours community service and 12 months' disqualification from driving concurrent.
  • Dominic Sutcliffe: count 2, 3 months' Youth Detention and 12 months' disqualification from driving; count 4, £50 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default of payment concurrent; count 5a, £100 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default of payment consecutive; count 6a, £50 fine or 1 week' imprisonment in default of payment concurrent; count 8, 3 months' Youth Detention and 12 months' disqualification from driving concurrent.
  • The 18 hour attendance order imposed on 10th October, 1997 was discharged.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

Judgment

82 5 pages

ROYAL

COURT (Samedi Division) 22nd April, 1998 Before: F.C. Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Ruez and Quérée The Attorney General - v - Pascal Peter Corcoran and Dominic Sutcliffe Pascal Peter CORCORAN 1 count of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 1); 1 count of driving a motor vehicle without a licence, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 3); 1 count of driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 5); 1 count of` failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 6); and 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 7). Plea: Guilty to counts 1, 3 and 7; not guilty to counts 5 & 6. Pleas entered on 17th April, 1998, and accepted by the Crown. Age: 18. Details of Offence: Corcoran with co-accused Sutcliffe took and drove away a motor vehicle. Neither had a driving licence or insurance. Shortly before indictment they changed their version of who was driving at the time of the crash and the indictment was amended to include count 5(a) and 5(b). The car was a

write-off. Details of Mitigation: Since being granted bail he has been in employment and has a good reference. Had spent the equivalent of two months and twenty-two days on remand. Previous Convictions: Three minor offences. In breach of a 18 hour attendance centre order. Conclusions: Count 1: 3 months’ Youth Detention, with 12 months’ disqualification from driving. Count 3: £50 fine or 1 week’s Youth Detention in default of payment, concurrent. Count 7: 3 months’ Youth Detention, concurrent; 12 months; disqualification from driving, concurrent. Attendance Order to be completed. Sentence and Observations of the Court: Count 1: 3 months’ probation, with 40 hours’ community service; 12 months’ disqualification from driving. Count 3: Conclusions granted; 2 weeks to pay Count 7: 3 months’ probation; 40 hours Community Service; 12 months’ disqualification from driving (concurrent). [The Crown further moved that an 18 hour attendance order imposed by the Royal Court on 10th October, 1997 (see Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date) should continue to run. The Court discharged this Order.] Dominic

SUTCLIFFE 1 count of driving a motor vehicle knowing that it has been taken without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 2); 1 count of driving a motor vehicle without a licence, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 4); 1 count of driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 5a); 1 count of failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 6a); 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 8). Plea: Guilty (plea entered on 17th April, 1998). Age: 20. Details of Offence: Sutcliffe with co-accused Corcoran took and drove away a motor vehicle. Neither had a driving licence or insurance. Shortly before indictment they changed their version of who was driving at the time of the crash and the indictment was amended to include count 5(a) and 5(c). The car was a write-off. Details of Mitigation: Had spent the equivalent of seven months twenty-nine days on remand (Sutcliffe also facing indictment regarding breaking, entering and larceny). Previous Convictions: Two - in breach of a probation order with 240 hours community service

for 6 counts of breaking, entering and larceny. Conclusions: Count 2: 3 months’ Youth Detention, with 12 months’ disqualification from driving. Count 4: £50 fine or 1 week’s Youth Detention, concurrent, in default of payment. Count 5a: £100 fine or 1 week’s Youth Detention, consecutive, in default of payment. Count 6a: £50 fine or 1 week’s Youth Detention, concurrent, in default of payment. Count 8: 3 months’ Youth Detention; 12 months’ disqualification from driving. Sentence and Observations of the Court: Conclusions granted. Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate. Advocate A.P. Roscouet for P.P. Corcoran. Advocate C.M. Fogarty for D. Sutcliffe.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: I want to say this to both of you. Opportunist crimes such as this can be deadly dangerous. Fortunately you only damaged a wall and did not injure any member of the public. However, I want you both to imagine what might have happened if you had caused an accident and somebody had suffered, say, permanent brain damage, because I want you think who on earth would have paid for their care for the rest of their lives without any possibility of an insurance claim because neither of you was insured and neither of you was authorised to drive that vehicle. That is why driving a vehicle which does not belong to you, and which may seem - under the influence of alcohol - to be a fun thing to do, is so deadly dangerous. I think the owner of the car, which was written-off, would no doubt have a few words of his own to say to you this afternoon. I will deal with you first, Sutcliffe. You were on bail and under curfew when you were arrested and I think you are fortunate because we do not have sufficient documentation to deal with the breach of probation and we must ignore that. You have served your time on remand and so the sentence which we are going to impose is not really of moment to you but I have to say, under the law, that these offences were quite serious enough to warrant the Youth Detention for which the Crown Advocate has asked. We formally sentence you now to

three months’ Youth Detention and 12 months’ disqualification from driving on count 2. A £50 fine or 1 week’s imprisonment, concurrent, in default of payment on count 4; £100 fine or 1 week’s imprisonment, consecutive, in default of payment on count 5a; £50 fine or 1 week’s imprisonment, concurrent, in default of payment on count 6a; 3 months’ Youth Detention, concurrent and 12 months’ disqualification from driving, concurrent, on count 8. What that means is that you may leave the Court now and I have already spoken to you regarding the other offence. The Court realises that those fines mean that you have another £200 to find and you are already going to pay compensation under the previous matter for which you were sentenced. What I say to you is this: we are going to give you 12 months to pay that fine. If, at the end of the 12 months, you cannot pay the fine you must go back to the Viscount and tell him. You may leave the Court. Corcoran, we are not going to send you back to prison for the short time to make up for the sentence which, as we have said to Suffcliffe, was amply justified in your case because, although Sutcliffe eventually admitted he was driving the car, you drove it most of the way to Gorey. We think that you should put something back into the community for what you have done and the Court must take into account that Sutcliffe has spent much longer on remand in

prison than you have. As I say, these offences are quite serious enough to warrant Youth Detention. What we are going to do is to vary the conclusions in order, we think, to fit the justice of the case. Therefore, on count 1, we are going to sentence you to three months’ probation and during that three months’ probation you are to carry out 40 hours of community service. We have made a recommendation to Mr. Trott for the Probation Officer to note that we would like you to carry that out on a Sunday, simply because your job may necessitate you working on a Saturday. The five hours should take you over two months and you have got to try to fulfil the community service during that time. We think that it is better for you to carry out community service - because you are doing something useful - rather than going to the Attendance Centre. Although you still have some time left to run at the Attendance Centre we are going to cancel that Order; and that will be discharged. Also, on count 1, you are disqualified from driving for 12 months. On count 3, you are fined the sum of £50, or 1 week’s imprisonment in default of payment, and we give you two weeks in which to pay the fine. On count 7, you are placed on 3 months’ Probation with 40 hours community service, together with 12 months’ disqualification from driving, concurrent. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994: Article 4. AG -v- Adams (28th January, 1998) Jersey Unreported. AG -v- Dubois, Leitch (30th May, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG -v- Adams (28th January, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

Case cited

AG -v- Dubois, Leitch (30th May, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

Case cited

Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.