Crown Advocate Belhomme has - as one would expect - prepared for us a reasoned written argument in law and in fact. From that we learn immediately that there is in law nothing to distinguish culpability between Miss Paul and Mr. Whitcombe ( see Grove -v- AG (21 st March, 1994) Jersey Unreported). We have also seen and studied the guidelines set out for the purposes of commonality by the Magistrate for those judges who appear in his court. Essentially the points there are that people who drive when they are disqualified or uninsured are a great risk to the public, and particularly in the case of motor insurance where, if there had been an accident, the consequences to an injured party might have been extremely serious.
In this case there was no injury and relatively minor damage. Driving without insurance can take many forms and the facts of this case - the spur of a moment decision by an exhausted nurse returning after a night’s shift - must have affected her judgment. It is of course essential that others are deterred from committing offences of a similar nature and that is the reason why the penalties are relatively high even for first offenders. However, Mr. Belhomme agrees that disqualification is not mandatory under the law. In the particular circumstances of this unusual case we are going to reduce the disqualification to three months from the date of disqualification and the appeal is allowed in that regard.
Miss Deacon shall have her legal aid costs.
Authorities
Grove -v- AG (21 March 1994) Jersey Unreported.