Jersey Judgment

AG v Wilkinson [2023] JRC 042 (10 March 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Despite the seriousness of the offences and the custodial threshold being passed, the defendant's youth, lack of previous convictions, early admissions, cooperation, genuine remorse, and positive references justified a non-custodial sentence of community service and probation, with driving disqualification and costs order.

Court disposition

non-custodial sentence imposed

Orders

  • 220 hours' Community Service under 12 month Probation Order for causing serious injury by dangerous driving
  • 3 years' driving disqualification with requirement to retake test (from 19 January 2023)
  • 40 hours' Community Service under 12 month Probation Order for driving with excess alcohol (concurrent)
  • 12 month driving disqualification for excess alcohol (concurrent)
  • £500 contribution to prosecution costs payable within one month, default 2 weeks' youth detention

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Unnamed Defendant

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Community Service (dangerous Driving): 220
  • Community Service (excess Alcohol): 40
  • Driving Disqualification (years): 3
  • Prosecution Costs Ordered: GBP 500
  • Default Detention for Non Payment (weeks): 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown summarized the facts, emphasizing the seriousness of the dangerous driving, the high alcohol reading, the injuries caused, and the aggravating factors such as speed and passenger safety breaches. The Crown referred to the relevant laws and sentencing guidelines.
Respondent
Mitigation included early guilty plea, cooperation, lack of previous convictions, genuine remorse, youth, and positive character references. The defense argued for a non-custodial sentence given these factors.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014

    Custodial threshold for dangerous driving causing serious injury is passed but non-custodial sentence may be justified for young offenders with strong mitigation.

  2. 02

    Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines

    Sentencing must consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including risk to public, remorse, cooperation, and likelihood of reoffending.

  3. 03

    Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

    Driving disqualification and requirement to retake test are mandatory for serious driving offences.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Despite the seriousness of the offences and the custodial threshold being passed, the defendant's youth, lack of previous convictions, early admissions, cooperation, genuine remorse, and positive references justified a non-custodial sentence of community service and probation, with driving disqualification and costs order.

Obiter and limits

  • The court expressed concern about the defendant's moderate risk of re-conviction due to binge-drinking and sporadic cannabis use but accepted the remorse as genuine and treated the incident as a youthful mistake.
  • The court noted the importance of character references in assessing the defendant's likelihood of reoffending.

Court disposition

non-custodial sentence imposed

  • 220 hours' Community Service under 12 month Probation Order for causing serious injury by dangerous driving
  • 3 years' driving disqualification with requirement to retake test (from 19 January 2023)
  • 40 hours' Community Service under 12 month Probation Order for driving with excess alcohol (concurrent)
  • 12 month driving disqualification for excess alcohol (concurrent)
  • £500 contribution to prosecution costs payable within one month, default 2 weeks' youth detention

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

[2023] JRC 042

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You are to be sentenced today for two offences. The first is that on 6 July 2022, you drove a vehicle dangerously and thereby caused serious injury to one of your passengers. The second is that you drove the vehicle on the same occasion, with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.

2. We do not need to go into the full details because they have been referred to fully by the Crown in the Summary of Facts that has been read out before us. In brief, you drove your work vehicle, whilst over the drink-drive limit and whilst carrying 5 passengers, 4 of whom were in the back of the van without either seats or seatbelts. On taking a bend in the road along La Grande Route des Sablons, you lost control of the vehicle causing the van to spin and collide with two parked cars and damaging a third car and a wall. That collision resulted in injuries and one of your passengers suffered a break to the radius and to the ulna. You were mercifully uninjured.

3. The collision had taken place after you had all been drinking at Green Island and took place at around 11:45 at night.

4. Understandably, when the police attended on the scene, your passengers were distressed and when asked who was driving, you readily identified yourself and that is to your credit. You failed a roadside breath test.

5. Whilst at the police station, you underwent a further test, the lowest reading of which was 46 units per 100 millilitres of breath; the legal limit being 35 units.

6. One of your passengers required an operation on her arm and a metal plate was applied to her to fix the fractures. She was in a plaster cast for some 4 weeks following surgery and unable to work for 11 weeks.

7. Two of your other passengers had injuries although they were less extensive, and you and two others of your passengers suffered no injury.

8. The forensic examination of the crash scene suggested that your vehicle was travelling at a critical speed which was calculated as between 54 and 66 miles per hour. The speed limit on the road being 30 miles per hour.

9. In our view the passenger load of the vehicle and its condition were, of themselves, dangerous. To that, we add the nature of your driving and it is clear that you have risked the safety of passengers in your vehicle.

10. We are satisfied in view of all of the circumstances that the custodial threshold in this case has been passed, in other words without further consideration we would be entitled to impose a sentence of youth detention. Do you understand that?

11. In the light of your age, you fall to be dealt with under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 . We do not need to set out that Law in detail, it is well known, but it has been referred to of course by the Crown in the Conclusions before us.

12. You do not have any previous convictions nor do you have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and we think that, accordingly, in this case as we have already indicated a non-custodial sentence can be justified.

13. We note the effect of the injuries on your passengers but we also note the mitigation available to you. You have the benefit of ready admissions and an early guilty plea, you appear to have been entirely co-operative, you have no material previous convictions and of course you have the benefit of youth. All of these count substantially in your favour.

14. We note with some concern you are assessed at being of moderate risk of re-conviction in the next 12 months with binge-drinking and sporadic use of cannabis as being a factor, but in terms of other mitigation we note and accept that your remorse is entirely genuine, we think that you have seen the folly of your actions and we are prepared to treat this as a youthful mistake. The references that you have received are extremely good and you should be grateful to those who have provided them because they speak to your character in a way that the simple facts before us would not and we have taken them into account. We do not think that you are a person who is prone to reoffending. We are confident that you have learnt the error of your ways and that you will not be back before this Court or any other court again for similar offending.

15. In the light of what we have just said, the sentences we impose are as follows: (i) Count 1, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, 220 hours' Community Service which is the equivalent of 16 months' youth detention all under the aegis of a 12 month Probation Order. You are disqualified from driving for 3 years with a requirement to re-take the driving test. (ii) Count 2, driving with excess alcohol, we impose 40 hours' Community Service again under the aegis of a Probation Order of 12 months. We also order a 12 month disqualification from driving with the requirement that you retake a driving test. In total, as we are dealing with the matter concurrently, that means that you have to serve 220 hours Community Service which is the equivalent of 16 months' youth detention. You are disqualified from driving for 3 years and are required to take a test again before you can drive again at the expiration of that period and that disqualification will run from 19 January 2023 when the interim disqualification was imposed.

16. We turn to the question of costs. In our view it is entirely appropriate that you make a contribution to the costs of the Prosecution in this case but we propose as an act of leniency to make that a payment of £500 as opposed to the £1,000 requested. You have one month to pay that and the default sentence, which I have to specify. is 2 weeks' youth detention if you do not. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014. Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994 Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines AG v B [2018] JRC 016 . Page Last Updated: 17 May 2023 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map © Jersey Legal Information Board 2001- 20262023 (External) BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

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 B [2018] JRC 016

Case cited

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (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.