AG v Pounds [2024] JRC 270 (09 December 2024)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Mr Pounds, we will give additional reasons for our decision in writing in due course. You were found guilty by the Jurats after a trial lasting six days of causing the death of Dean Lowe and his son, Charlie Lowe, by dangerous driving. You were also found guilty of dangerous driving subsequent to the collision which killed Dean and Charlie.

2. The Jurats found that you chose to drive your van after you had been drinking all day. You drank at least two pints of lager at the Union Inn, then you drank approximately six pints at the Pembroke Inn and finally you drank approximately one pint at the Dolphin Inn in Gorey. This makes a total of approximately nine pints of lager that you consumed on the day of and prior to the collision.

3. You knew you were unfit to drive when you left the Pembroke Inn as you accepted a lift from a witness, Sarah Blake, who could tell that you were too drunk to drive and told you to your face that you must not drive. In her evidence, she described you as being very drunk, swaying and staggering in The Dolphin Inn, and said that she had to steady you as you were spilling your beer in that pub. CCTV footage independently confirms her recollection. You continue to minimise your responsibility for causing the deaths of Dean and Charlie Lowe by telling the Probation Officer that you felt you were fit to drive. You were not, and you knew that you were not by the time that you chose to drive.

4. The States Analyst gave evidence to the effect that you were, in the circumstances that the Jurats found, approximately twice the legal limit for drink driving.

5. You stopped drinking at 9.20pm and then took a bus destined for St Helier with the man who had been your drinking partner throughout the day. You and he had no reason at all to get off the bus before it reached St Helier, but you did so - you choose to do so in order to drive your van back to St Helier when you knew were drunk. Just seventeen minutes after you finished drinking your ninth pint, you left the Pembroke carpark in your work's van.

6. The manner of your driving was significantly impaired by consumption of alcohol.

7. You were substantially exceeding the speed limit and gave no allowance for the fact that you were driving on an unlit country road, La Rue de Fauvic, nor were you prepared for the presence of pedestrians, nor did you reduce your speed - ignoring a large and clear 'Slow' sign on the road ahead shortly before the point of impact. You ignored the speed limit and you ignored the possible presence of pedestrians on the road at night on a stretch of road without pavements.

8. Had you kept to the speed limit and had you kept a proper lookout you would have seen and avoided Dean and Charlie Lowe who were walking home carefully - tucked in at the side of the road. Other motorists were easily able to and did see Dean and Charlie making their way home and had no difficulty in avoiding them.

9. You made no attempt to avoid them. You did not swerve or brake. You hit them at substantial speed causing grave injury to both which we will not revisit for the purpose of these short remarks. The injuries that they sustained and the distance that Dean, in particular, was thrown were consistent with a high-energy, in other words, high speed impact of 44 mph. Not only were Dean and Charlie gravely injured but they were immediately rendered unconscious and both died shortly thereafter in consequence of un-survivable injuries.

10. The excessive speed, the very substantial consumption of alcohol which impaired and contributed to the manner of your driving, easily met the test for dangerous driving.

11. You must have known instantly that you had been involved in an accident owing to the damage to your vehicle (including you being immediately showered in glass from your fractured windscreen) and the impact on your vehicle of the collision itself. Any competent and careful driver would have stopped their vehicle immediately. You failed to stop and took a circuitous route back to West Park when your vehicle was in a patently dangerous state. You failed to stop because you knew you were drunk and you knew that you had been involved in an accident.

12. You chose to continue driving your vehicle in circumstances where you should not have been driving at all. This calls for a consecutive sentence of imprisonment. You drove when you were still drunk. You drove too quickly and you drove the van when it was obviously dangerous. The damage to the bodywork of the vehicle as a consequence of the impact with the two pedestrians was severe, presenting an obvious risk of injury to others and you could not even see through the nearside part of your windscreen owing to the damage to the windscreen occasioned by its impact with Dean's body.

13. You deliberately disregarded the safety of other road users having just killed two pedestrians. A member of the public who saw you driving was shocked to see a vehicle being driven with such extensive damage. Debris fell from the vehicle as you drove.

14. You have also pleaded guilty to a Second Indictment on the footing that you were concerned in the supply of a Class A drug, cocaine, as well as a Class B drug, cannabis.

15. We note from the probation report that you reject the independent evidence that you were visibly intoxicated before the collision. The report says you do not agree with the Court's guilty verdict although your advocate says today that you are now reconciled to it. You did, according to the Probation Officer, express regret that the witnesses and the family of your victims were put through the ordeal of a trial. In respect of the drugs offences, you do not regard yourself as having caused anyone any harm. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that the Probation Officer observes that there is a tendency for you to minimise and justify your behaviour. The likelihood of your re-conviction is high, with the principal factors being your alcohol and drug misuse and your unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions.

16. The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving in Jersey is 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum sentence for failing to stop is 6 months' imprisonment. The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 2 years' imprisonment.

17. We accept that the consecutive terms of imprisonment are generally not imposed for offences which arise out of the same act and have been referred to authority which states that the total sentence should take into account the number of deaths caused by dangerous driving but that it is generally wrong in principle to impose consecutive sentences.

18. In the circumstances, we accept that the maximum sentence for the collision which caused the deaths of Dean and Charlie is 10 years imprisonment.

19. It is difficult for us to put into words the anguish and suffering that has resulted from the deaths for which you were wholly responsible. We have read the moving statements of Dean's partner and Charlie's mother Ashley and the statement of Dean's mother Kay. We can well understand why they say that their lives have been devastated. The family of Dean and Charlie face their own life sentence.

20. People who drive as you did and take the lives of two innocent victims must expect to be severely punished.

21. The sentences we impose are as follows: (i) Count 1 - 10 years' imprisonment and 12 years disqualification from driving. (ii) Count 2 - 10 years' imprisonment concurrent and 12 years disqualification from driving. (iii) Count 3 - 6 months' imprisonment concurrent and 12 months disqualification from driving. (iv) Count 4 - 2 years' imprisonment consecutive and 5 years disqualification from driving. (v) Count 5 - no separate penalty. Counts 1b and Counts 2b left on the file.

22. Second Indictment: (i) Count 1 - 3 years' imprisonment. (ii) Count 2 - 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. Making a total of 15 years imprisonment and 12 years disqualification from driving.

23. We ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in this case and your mobile phone. Authorities AG v Silva et al [2014] JRC 206 AG v Luis [2007] JRC 233 AG v Figueira [2007] JRC 136 AG v McInnes [2000] 43 AG v Taylor [2019] JRC 027 AG v Antunes [2003] JRC 072 Rimmer et al v AG [2001] JLR 373 McDonough v AG [1994] JCA 193 Campbell v AG [1995] JLR 136 R v Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996 R v Ralphs [2009] EWCA Crim 2555 R v Lawrence [1989] 11 Cr. App. R. (S.) 580 R v Noble [2002] EWCA Crim 1713 R v Mannan [2016] EWCA Crim 1082 R v Chudasama [2018] EWCA Crim 2867 . Page Last Updated: 07 Jan 2025 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII