Mildren v AG [2019] JRC 009A (31 January 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] JRC 009A
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
More details
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant was not disqualified from driving as at 12 May 2018 due to the expiry of the original disqualification and lack of statutory power to require a retake of the driving test; the Magistrate's Court lacked power to impose consecutive disqualifications under the 1956 Law.
Court disposition
conviction and sentence quashed; sentence remitted for re-sentencing; costs awarded to appellant
Orders
- Conviction for driving whilst disqualified quashed
- Sentence of 70 hours community service quashed
- Sentence of 2 months disqualification for driving without insurance quashed
- Matter remitted to Magistrate's Court for re-sentencing
- Costs awarded in favour of appellant
02
Material facts
Parties
Appellant
AppellantCrown
RespondentRelief Magistrate, Advocate Fitz
Magistrate Counsel: Advocate FitzAmounts and remedies
- Community Service Sentence Quashed: 70
- Disqualification for Driving Without Insurance Quashed: months 2
- Disqualification for Driving With Excess Alcohol: months 16
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was disqualified from driving as at 12 May 2018
- 02
Whether the Magistrate's Court had power to order consecutive driving disqualifications under the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant was not disqualified from driving as at 12 May 2018 due to an error in the criminal record; the Magistrate's Court lacked power to impose consecutive disqualifications.
- Respondent
- Crown does not oppose the appeal and concedes the errors regarding disqualification and sentencing powers.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956
Disqualification from driving must be based on correct criminal record and statutory powers.
- 02
Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956
Magistrate's Court cannot order consecutive driving disqualifications unless permitted by statute.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant was not disqualified from driving as at 12 May 2018 due to the expiry of the original disqualification and lack of statutory power to require a retake of the driving test; the Magistrate's Court lacked power to impose consecutive disqualifications under the 1956 Law.
Court disposition
conviction and sentence quashed; sentence remitted for re-sentencing; costs awarded to appellant
- Conviction for driving whilst disqualified quashed
- Sentence of 70 hours community service quashed
- Sentence of 2 months disqualification for driving without insurance quashed
- Matter remitted to Magistrate's Court for re-sentencing
- Costs awarded in favour of appellant
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. This is an appeal by way of case stated against two aspects of orders made by the Relief Magistrate, Advocate Fitz, on 14 th September, 2018. The Crown do not oppose the appeal and I can therefore be brief.
2. The appeal is out of time but that is because the error which I am about to refer to was not discovered until after the expiry of the eight day period for appealing. I therefore consider it reasonable to extend time, the Appellant having moved promptly once the error was discovered; so I therefore grant leave to appeal out of time.
3. The Appellant appeared before the Relief Magistrate on 14 th September, 2018 to be sentenced on four charges, to which he had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing. One of the offences was that of driving whilst disqualified on 12 th May, 2018. The basis for the charge was the criminal record produced to the Relief Magistrate at the hearing. This showed that on 3 rd April, 2007 for an offence of taking and driving away, contrary to Article 53 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 , the Appellant had been disqualified from driving for 6 months, and that that disqualification was to continue until he retook and passed the relevant driving test.
4. It was agreed that he had not in fact retaken his driving test since 2007 with the result that he was assumed to remain disqualified as at May 2018. Subsequently, it has transpired that the Magistrate's Court record shows that at the hearing on 3 rd April 2007 he was not in fact ordered to re-take his driving test. That is not surprising as the power to order a person to retake a driving test, which is conferred by Article 35 of the 1956 Law, does not include offences of taking and driving away contrary to Article 53. It follows that the criminal record which was produced to the Relief Magistrate in September and relied upon was incorrect.
5. It follows that by the 12 th May, 2018, the period of disqualification ordered on 3 rd April, 2007, had long since expired. The Appellant was therefore not disqualified from driving as at 12 th May 2018 and he could not therefore be guilty of driving whilst disqualified. In those circumstances, with the agreement of all parties, I quash the conviction on that charge and the resulting sentence of 70 hours community service.
6. The second aspect relates to a sentence of 2 months disqualification which the Relief Magistrate imposed on the charge of driving without insurance. The difficulty arises because she ordered that period to run consecutively to a disqualification for 16 months which she had imposed on the same occasion for a charge of driving with excess alcohol.
7. The Crown concedes that the 1956 Law does not allow driving disqualification orders to commence at some future date. It was therefore outside the power of the Magistrate's Court to order the disqualification on the charge of driving without insurance to run consecutively to the period imposed for driving with excess alcohol; they had to run concurrently.
8. I therefore, quash the sentence of 2 months disqualification on the charge of driving without insurance and remit that matter to the Magistrate's Court for re-sentencing. I order costs in favour of the Appellant. Authorities Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. Page Last Updated: 06 Feb 2019 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.