1999/166 - AG v Schlandt [1999] UR 166 (8 October 1999)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction by the Court "en police correctionnelle" on 16 September 1999 on a not guilty plea, entered on 21 May 1999 to:

1 count of driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, contrary to Article 16(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 as amended.

1 count of driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (count 2); and :

3 counts of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:

The defendant was a driver storeman for PBS. He was a chronic polydrug abuser and had been injecting heroin for about 4 years before the offence. On 15 June 1998 an ambulance was called to his home after he had a bad reaction to the combination of an injection of heroin in combination with a drug called Naltrexone which he had been prescribed as an opiate blocker. A search of his accommodation revealed cannabis resin (count 5). Syringes, with traces of heroin were also found, but it did not result in a charge. On 30^th June 1998 the defendant left for work from his home in Gorey driving the works’ van. He completed a morning’s delivery, having stopped for a late breakfast following which he said he was tired. His colleagues at the depot observed him to be tired, gaunt, and unwell. He left the depot to go to Probation for a 1.00pm appointment, taking the van. He was driving at about 15mph when rounding the bend just before Barnes Garage. The van did not negotiate the bend, but went straight on with no attempt to brake or swerve, mounted the pavement and crashed into the wall between the British Legion Club and Barnes Garage. The van crushed a child’s buggy almost flat against the wall. The mother and daughter were very seriously injured. Mother was confined to hospital for five weeks. The van was searched. Two syringes with traces of heroin were found in the van, as well as a Benson & Hedges cigarette packet containing a wrap of heroin (count 3) and a wrap of citric acid. A bag of 6 unused syringes was also found. At the hospital, the defendant told Dr Hickson that his blood samples would be positive for drugs, because he said he injected heroin on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday before the accident on Tuesday. He showed the doctor the sites of the injections. A drug search of his home revealed personal cannabis (count 4). At interview, the defendant admitted he was a regular heroin abuser and was prescribed Dothiepin and Diazepam. These drugs were found in the defendant’s samples, as well as codeine and a trace of morphine. No heroin was detected. It appeared the defendant has been sold DF118 and told it was heroin; this is what he had been injecting. The defendant was found guilty of count 1 at Inferior Number trial commencing on 14 September 1999 involving some 33 witnesses.

The defendant had been co-operative with the police in that he had admitted his addiction but did not name his supplier. Remorse. Good references. Thought he was fit to drive.

1996 possession of heroin, cannabis, and utensils - probation 1 year plus 100 hours Community Service.

April, 1998, possession of cocaine and cannabis - probation 12 month’s concurrent.

Counts 4 - 5: concurrent with each other, but consecutive to sentences imposed on other counts.

TOTAL: 7 Months imprisonment; £250 fine or 2 months imprisonment in default of payment. Drugs forfeited and destroyed.

Conclusions granted. After passing sentence, Court observed that Dr Sharkey’s and Bill Saunder’s reports were "extraordinary". Both had stated that the judgment (of the Inferior Number conviction) was unsound. Court considered a contempt action: "We do not feel that the professional duty of men not experienced in the law is to criticise a finding of this Court, particularly after 1 hour and 25 minutes of intense deliberation by the Jurats concerned. Neither gave evidence, neither were present in Court, and their extraordinary comments have caused this Court some concern."

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: This is an unusual case in that it is one of the few cases in which an accused has been found guilty of driving whilst unfit through drugs - whether prescribed or not.

That being proved, the defendant is liable for his actions, and those actions were serious enough. His van, on a fine dry day with no traffic about, drove in a straight line along Devonshire Place and apparently without braking smashed into a wall, seriously injuring a mother, and injuring her baby daughter. The effects were serious; they could so easily have led to fatalities. However we are not at all certain that the effects of this accident should affect our decision.

Although the defendant caught his head on the windscreen, he was able to speak after the accident, apparently enquiring if a baby was involved. The van was in good working order, particularly the brakes and the tyres. We do not need to go into the medical history of Mr Schlandt; he had prescribed drugs in his system and has been a drug abuser for many years. We heard how his tiredness was noticed by several work colleagues before the accident occurred. He was driving to see his Probation Officer with heroin syringes and heroin in his van. The defendant is a polydrug abuser. He has a criminal record with some serious drug offences.

In our view this is, of course, a more serious case than that of Mc Cabe, (5^th February, 1999) Jersey Unreported and we have found the words of Lane, L.C.J. in Boswell and Others, (1984) CLR 257 of some help: dealing with aggravating features to be taken into account in cases of causing death by reckless driving, which of course is not on a par with what we have here - Lord Lane cited the words of Lawton L.J, in Guilfoyle (1973) 57 Cr. App. R. 549:

"First, those in which the accident has arisen through momentary inattention or misjudgement, and secondly those in which the accused has driven in a manner which has shown a selfish disregard for the safety of other road users or his passengers, or with a degree of recklessness. A sub-division of this category is provided by the cases in which an accident has been caused or contributed to by the accused’s consumption of alcohol or drugs."

The other cases cited to us and which we have examined very carefully are helpful but only to a limited extent.

We have a man whose parents are obviously very caring. Nonetheless he injects himself with what he thinks is heroin from his van parked outside his house. He is on one year’s probation from the Magistrates Court for possession of drugs, and yet he is still willing to drive to see his Probation Officer with heroin and syringes for injecting heroin in his van. His employers have arranged to pay off his drug debt of £2,400 by arrangement with his father. That is to be deducted from his wages, and the net proceeds paid to his father, and yet after all that he is apparently spending £200 weekly on his heroin habit. We can only wonder at his good faith, and his efforts to reform.

There are many people clearly prepared to assist him. Many people speak encouragingly of him, and we are grateful to the excellent probation report and to it’s recommendations, and of course to the most helpful address of Advocate Pearmain. But after the most careful consideration we can see no reason to depart from the conclusions of the Crown. Stand up please Schlandt. You are sentenced to on Count 1: to 1 month imprisonment, and disqualified from driving for two years. On Count 2: £250 fine or 2 months in default. Count 3, (possession of heroin): 6 months imprisonment. Count 4, (possession of cannabis): 1 month imprisonment. Count 5, (cannabis): 1 month imprisonment. Counts 1, 2 and 3 are to be served concurrently. Counts 4 and 5 to be served concurrently with each other, but to follow consecutively the sentences passed on count 1, making 7 months in total. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, and the drug equipment.

A.G -v- Mc Cabe, Lakeman Watts. (5^th February, 1999) Jersey Unreported [1999.024]

Current Sentencing Practice: B12 - 1.3.B: Driving without due care and attention:

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/166 - AG v Schlandt [1999] UR 166 (8 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/166.html Cite as: [1999] UR 166

Jersey Unreported Judgments