AG v Le Goff 21-Feb-2020

Inferior Number Sentencing - Motoring

[2020]JRC033

Royal Court

(Samedi)

21 February 2020

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Thomas and Christensen.

The Attorney General

-v-

Bertrand Ollivier Le Goff

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

2 counts of:

Driving a vehicle dangerously, contrary to Article 22(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. (Count 1 and Count 2)

1 count of:

Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 52 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. (Count 3)

1 count of:

Driving a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, contrary to Article 28(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. (Count 4)

Age:  46. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

At approximately 8:40 pm on 12th October, 2019, the defendant was captured on police CCTV driving a silver Volkswagen Passat (“the Car”) along various roads in St Helier town centre including the wrong side of the Esplanade (travelling west) and turning right onto Gloucester Street, against the direction of the one way traffic system.  The Car then turned right onto Seaton Place. 

 

The Car turned onto Seale Street and continued to the junction opposite La Taverne Restaurant.  The Car turned right onto York Street, against the one way system. 

 

A member of the public saw the defendant urinating on the Durrell ornamental gorilla near to Le Hocq pub.  The defendant then got back into the driver’s seat of the Car, and drove east along the Coast Road, on the wrong side of the road. 

 

At approximately 9:30pm the Car was observed driving east past Long Beach Car Park, without visible damage.  Moments later police came across the scene of a road traffic collision.  The driver of the damaged vehicle had been driving west along Gorey Coast Road.  The Car drove towards him on the wrong side of the road.  He slowed his vehicle, but the Car collided with his vehicle head on.  The Car drove off. 

 

Police officers discovered the scene of a collision at the junction between La Rue de la Maitrerie and La Route de Maufant.  Due to the position of debris, an officer opined that the Car was driven through the junction and head on into the embankment. 

 

Tyres from the Car were also found.  It was later established that the front and rear nearside tyres of the Car had become deflated due to impact and had then been driven on, causing them to become shredded.  Damage to the outer rim of the front wheel indicated that the wheel had been driven on once the tyre had been shredded from the wheel. 

 

At approximately 5:00 am the next day the defendant was located in Trinity.  The Car was severely damaged and incapable of being driven further. 

 

The defendant was arrested.  He provided a sample of breath which contained 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres.  A back calculation provided that at 9:26pm on 12th October, 2019, the alcohol concentration would have been between 54 and 164 micrograms in 100 millilitres, with the most likely concentration being 104 micrograms in 100 millilitres. 

Details of Mitigation:

No previous convictions, positive good character, remorse, physical and emotional challenges due to loss of limb and divorce, PTSD.  .

Previous Convictions:

The defendant has no previous convictions

Conclusions:

Count 1:

15 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ disqualification from driving.

Count 2:

15 months’ imprisonment, and 4 years’ disqualification from driving, concurrent to Count 1. 

Count 3:

3 months’ imprisonment, and 12 months’ disqualification from driving, consecutive to Count 1.

Count 4:

3 months’ imprisonment, and 18 months’ disqualification from driving, concurrent to Count 1.

Total:  18 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ disqualification from driving

Recommendation for deportation sought.

The Crown sought that the defendant re-take the driving test once the period of disqualification had expired.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:

12 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ disqualification from driving.

Count 2:

12 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ disqualification from driving, concurrent to Count 1. 

Count 3:

3 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ disqualification from driving concurrent to Count 1.

Count 4:

3 months’ imprisonment and 15 months’ disqualification from driving concurrent to Count 1.

Total 12 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ disqualification from driving. 

The Court ordered that the defendant was required to undertake a re-test once the period of disqualification expired.

The Court did not make a recommendation for deportation.

M. R. Maletroit, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. Sette for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Le Goff you are 46 years old and you came to Jersey from France for an overnight stay on the 12th October last year.  You went out for a meal with your wife that evening, you drank too much alcohol to drive, you fell out with your wife in circumstances to which we will return and then got in your car, a Volkswagen Passat.  During the next period you drove a substantial distance, probably over ten miles, with no regard at all for the safety of others. 

2.        Whilst in St Helier you drove the wrong way along the Esplanade and you drove up a busy Gloucester Street against the direction of traffic.  A member of the public described your driving as “quick and dangerous”.  In Seale Street your right rear wheel mounted the pavement and you drove against the direction of traffic through York Street.  Shortly thereafter, you were seen at Le Hocq, standing by your car with the engine running, urinating on an ornamental gorilla whilst the public toilet was nearby.  When you got back in your car, having shouted something at a passer-by who remonstrated with you, you drove along the coast road on the wrong side of the road.  As you neared Gorey, again on the wrong side of the road, you drove head on at high speed into another vehicle.  The damage to his vehicle and associated costs comes to nearly £4,000 which the other driver is yet to recover.  Fortunately for him he was not injured, but you did not stop to find out whether he was injured or not, you simply drove on mounting the pavement as you did.

3.        At the junction between La Rue de la Maitrerie, St Martin, and La Route de Maufant in St Saviour, your vehicle crashed into a bank, leaving rubble and car parts.  The distribution of debris shows that you probably drove head on into the bank.  By now your car itself was in a dangerous condition, which gives rise to Count 2. 

4.        Just before midnight the police found part of a tyre just opposite St Martin’s School, which was shredded and had come from your car.  A further tyre part was found near the Zoo, again from your car and the two near side tyres would only have been shredded after they had been driven deflated over a distance.

5.        Sometime after this point you crashed your car again, at the junction of Rue De La Fontaine and Rue Coutanche in Trinity.  By now the car was so badly damaged it could not be driven further and at 5.14 am you telephoned the police.

6.        The medical evidence is that the concentration of alcohol in your breath at the time of the collision in Gorey would have been between 54 and 164 micrograms against the limit of 35.  The Crown has advanced its case on the basis most favourable to you, namely that the alcohol concentration in your breath would have been 54 micrograms, but on any view, throughout the period of your driving you were over the limit. 

7.        There is no mitigation available to you in relation to the circumstances of the offence.  It is a matter of good fortune that no one was seriously injured or killed by your driving.  Indeed your wife has written to the Court saying that you endangered your own life and that of others. 

8.        This was an extremely severe example of dangerous driving over a long period and it is certainly so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified.  However, you have pleaded guilty to these charges and you have expressed remorse.  Your wife says that you feel very terribly guilty about these offences and we have seen the emotion on your face this morning.  You are a man of good character, not merely a man without previous convictions, but positive good character.  Until your accident in 2015 you always worked, and you are described as a loving father to your three children.  The accident in 2015 resulted in the loss of most of your left leg, and has left you with very significant physical and emotional challenges.

9.        On the night of the offences, your wife indicated to you that she wished your 22 year marriage should come to an end, and whilst in custody you have received divorce papers from her. Nonetheless, she speaks in her letter to the Court about you as a hardworking man and a very dedicated father who has made a huge contribution to the care for your children.  So we regard this as exceptional mitigation.  It is not so exceptional that we are able to suspend the sentence of imprisonment, but we are able to reduce the Crown’s conclusions.  We are not going to recommend your deportation.  You only came to Jersey for a day and I understand you have no wish to return and you wish to go back to France as soon as you can.

10.      Turning now to the sentence that the Court imposes in relation to these offences, we should begin by observing we regard of the Crown’s conclusions as proper ones on the facts, but we reduce them by virtue of the extremely strong mitigation in your case.

11.      On Count 1 the sentence of the Court is 12 months imprisonment, with a four years disqualification from holding a licence.  On Count 2; again 12 month’s imprisonment with four years disqualification.  On Count 3; 3 months’ imprisonment and 12 months disqualification.  On Count 4, 3 months’ imprisonment and 15 months of disqualification.  All those sentences are to be concurrent, leaving a total of 12 months imprisonment and 4 years disqualification.  

12.      The members of the Court express the hope that when you return to France, you can start to rebuild your life and resume the professional qualification that the Court was told about.

13.      We make the order in relation to mandatory re-testing under Article 35. 

Authorities

AG v De La Haye [2010] JRC 005. 

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. 

Extract from Magistrate’s Court Sentencing Guidelines. 


Page Last Updated: 10 Aug 2020