Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Pounds [2024] JRC 270 (09 December 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_270.html
Cite as: [2024] JRC 270
|
|
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Pounds [2024] JRC 270 (09 December 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2024/2024_270.html Cite as: [2024] JRC 270 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge, Christensen MBE, Le Cornu, Cornish, Opfermann, Entwistle, Berry |
The Attorney General
-v-
Dylan John Pounds
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Inferior Number Trial and guilty pleas to the following charges:
First Indictment
|
2 counts of: |
Causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to Article 23(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(7) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Dangerous driving, contrary to Article 22(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4). |
|
1 count of: |
Possessing a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 5). |
Second Indictment
|
2 counts of: |
Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1 and Count 2) |
Age: 29.
Plea: First Indictment: Not guilty to Counts 1, 2 and 4. Guilty to Counts 3 and 5. Second Indictment: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
First indictment
The Defendant was convicted of two counts of causing death by dangerous driving (the primary offences), following a six-day Inferior Number trial. The Defendant also pleaded not guilty to two counts of causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, which were alternatives to the primary charges. The Defendant had pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by careless driving (in the second alternative to the primary charges), but those pleas were not accepted by the Crown.
At approximately 10:30am on 5 August 2023, the Defendant drove the van and met his friend, Callum Best. They went to the Union Pub, where the Defendant drank at least two pints of lager.
The Defendant then drove himself and Mr Best to the Pembroke Pub, where the Defendant drank approximately six pints of lager. The Defendant and Mr Best then decided to go to the Dolphin Hotel. Another patron of the Pembroke Pub, Sarah Blake, who was sober and had met the Defendant and Mr Best for the first time that day, was "absolutely furious" because she had seen the Defendant drinking and considered him unfit to drive. She told him that he must not drive due to the amount of alcohol he had consumed. She offered them a lift, which the Defendant and Mr Best accepted. The Defendant accepted this lift because he knew he was unfit to drive. That was approximately 90 minutes before the collision.
Whilst at the Dolphin Hotel, the Defendant drank approximately one further pint. Thus, the Court found that the Defendant consumed approximately nine pints of lager in total during the afternoon and evening leading up to the collision. The Court accepted the witness evidence that the Defendant was unfit to drive, very drunk, swaying and staggering, and spilling his drink, while he was at the Dolphin Hotel.
The Defendant and Mr Best left the Dolphin Hotel at approximately 9:20pm and got on a bus at Gorey Pier which was destined for St. Helier, which is where the Defendant's address was located. The Defendant disembarked the bus at the Royal Jersey Golf Club and walked to his van which was still parked outside the Pembroke Pub. At 9:38pm, the Defendant drove out of the car park and onto La Grande Route des Sablons. CCTV and call records showed that he was using his mobile phone as he drove out of the car park, for a call that lasted three minutes and thirteen seconds.
As the Defendant drove out the Pembroke Pub car park, Dean and Charlie Lowe were walking home. They had also been at the Pembroke Pub that evening but had no interaction with the Defendant whilst they were there. They walked along La Grande Route des Sablons and on to La Rue de Fauvic. That is where the collision occurred.
A number of witnesses saw Dean and Charlie Lowe walking along La Rue de Fauvic prior to the collision. They observed the pair walking carefully, tucked in at the side of the road. These motorists were easily able to and did see Dean and Charlie Lowe, and they had no difficulty avoiding them.
The Court found that the Defendant was approximately twice over the legal limit for driving at the time of the collision, and the manner of his driving was significantly impaired by alcohol consumption.
He was substantially exceeding the speed limit and gave no allowance for the fact that he was driving on an unlit country road, nor was he prepared for the presence of pedestrians, nor did he reduce his speed - ignoring a large and clear 'Slow' sign on the road ahead. The Defendant ignored the speed limit and ignored the possible presence of pedestrians on the road at night on a stretch of road without pavements. In doing so, he breached various rules of the Highway Code.
Calculations based on the features of the collision scene, and CCTV footage of the Defendant's van as it passed a private property shortly prior to the collision, showed that the vehicle was being driven in excess of 44mph at the time of the collision. The applicable speed limit was 30mph.
The Court found that the Defendant made no attempt to avoid Dean and Charlie Lowe. He did not swerve or brake. His van hit them at substantial speed causing grave and fatal injuries to them both.
The Court considered that the excessive speed, and very substantial consumption of alcohol which impaired and contributed to the manner of the Defendant's driving, easily met the test for dangerous driving.
The Defendant must have known instantly that he had been involved in an accident owing to the damage to his vehicle (including him being immediately showered in glass from the smashed windscreen) and the impact on the vehicle itself. Any competent and careful driver would have stopped their vehicle immediately. However, the Defendant failed to stop and took a circuitous route back to West Park when the vehicle was in a patently dangerous state, whilst he remained heavily intoxicated, and whilst he continued to drive in an obviously dangerous manner which included excessive speed.
The Court found that the Defendant failed to stop because he knew he was drunk and knew that he had been involved in a serious accident. Two members of the public who were driving westbound discovered Dean and Charlie in the road. They were lying face down and were motionless. The members of the public each called the emergency services at 9:44pm and 9:45pm. Despite theirs and the emergency service's efforts, neither Dean or Charlie Lowe recovered consciousness and were pronounced dead a few hours later. Post-mortem examinations revealed that Dean Lowe died as a result of head and neck injuries that his injuries reflected being struck by a vehicle in an upright position. Charlie Lowe died of head injuries, with his injuries also reflecting him having been struck in an upright position.
Second indictment
Following the Defendant's arrest on 6 August 2023, the Defendant's mobile phone was examined and found to contain messages that showed the Defendant's involvement in the supply of at least 7 grams of cocaine between December 2021 and August 2023 and 27 grams of cannabis between December 2021 and June 2022. Expert evidence opined that that the Defendant was a drug user and supplied friends, work colleagues and family at street level amounts.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas in respect of Counts 3 and 5 on the First Indictment and Counts 1 and 2 on the Second Indictment. The guilty pleas in respect of the First Indictment were not regarded as mitigation for the primary offences.
Previous Convictions:
Previous convictions and parish hall disposals for various motoring, drugs and public order offences.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
|
Count 1: |
10 years' imprisonment and 10 years' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 2: |
10 years' imprisonment, concurrent and 10 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
4 months' imprisonment, concurrent and 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
18 months' imprisonment, consecutive and 2 years' disqualification from driving concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
1 week's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Second Indictment
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment. |
|
Count 2: |
4 months' imprisonment, concurrent with Count 1 on the Second Indictment and consecutive to the First Indictment. |
Total: 14 years and 6 months' imprisonment and 10 years' disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence. Retest required.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized and the Defendant's mobile phone sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
First Indictment
|
Count 1: |
10 years' imprisonment and 12 years' disqualification from driving. |
|
Count 2: |
10 years' imprisonment, concurrent and 12 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent and 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
2 years' imprisonment, consecutive and 5 years' disqualification from driving concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
No separate penalty. |
Second Indictment
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment. |
|
Count 2: |
6 months' imprisonment, concurrent with Count 1 on the Second Indictment and consecutive to the First Indictment. |
Total: 15 years imprisonment and 12 years disqualification for holding or obtaining a licence. Retest required.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized and the Defendant's mobile phone ordered.
M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate I. Jones for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. Mr Pounds, we will give additional reasons for our decision in writing in due course. You were found guilty by the Jurats after a trial lasting six days of causing the death of Dean Lowe and his son, Charlie Lowe, by dangerous driving. You were also found guilty of dangerous driving subsequent to the collision which killed Dean and Charlie.
2. The Jurats found that you chose to drive your van after you had been drinking all day. You drank at least two pints of lager at the Union Inn, then you drank approximately six pints at the Pembroke Inn and finally you drank approximately one pint at the Dolphin Inn in Gorey. This makes a total of approximately nine pints of lager that you consumed on the day of and prior to the collision.
3. You knew you were unfit to drive when you left the Pembroke Inn as you accepted a lift from a witness, Sarah Blake, who could tell that you were too drunk to drive and told you to your face that you must not drive. In her evidence, she described you as being very drunk, swaying and staggering in The Dolphin Inn, and said that she had to steady you as you were spilling your beer in that pub. CCTV footage independently confirms her recollection. You continue to minimise your responsibility for causing the deaths of Dean and Charlie Lowe by telling the Probation Officer that you felt you were fit to drive. You were not, and you knew that you were not by the time that you chose to drive.
4. The States Analyst gave evidence to the effect that you were, in the circumstances that the Jurats found, approximately twice the legal limit for drink driving.
5. You stopped drinking at 9.20pm and then took a bus destined for St Helier with the man who had been your drinking partner throughout the day. You and he had no reason at all to get off the bus before it reached St Helier, but you did so - you choose to do so in order to drive your van back to St Helier when you knew were drunk. Just seventeen minutes after you finished drinking your ninth pint, you left the Pembroke carpark in your work's van.
6. The manner of your driving was significantly impaired by consumption of alcohol.
7. You were substantially exceeding the speed limit and gave no allowance for the fact that you were driving on an unlit country road, La Rue de Fauvic, nor were you prepared for the presence of pedestrians, nor did you reduce your speed - ignoring a large and clear 'Slow' sign on the road ahead shortly before the point of impact. You ignored the speed limit and you ignored the possible presence of pedestrians on the road at night on a stretch of road without pavements.
8. Had you kept to the speed limit and had you kept a proper lookout you would have seen and avoided Dean and Charlie Lowe who were walking home carefully - tucked in at the side of the road. Other motorists were easily able to and did see Dean and Charlie making their way home and had no difficulty in avoiding them.
9. You made no attempt to avoid them. You did not swerve or brake. You hit them at substantial speed causing grave injury to both which we will not revisit for the purpose of these short remarks. The injuries that they sustained and the distance that Dean, in particular, was thrown were consistent with a high-energy, in other words, high speed impact of 44 mph. Not only were Dean and Charlie gravely injured but they were immediately rendered unconscious and both died shortly thereafter in consequence of un-survivable injuries.
10. The excessive speed, the very substantial consumption of alcohol which impaired and contributed to the manner of your driving, easily met the test for dangerous driving.
11. You must have known instantly that you had been involved in an accident owing to the damage to your vehicle (including you being immediately showered in glass from your fractured windscreen) and the impact on your vehicle of the collision itself. Any competent and careful driver would have stopped their vehicle immediately. You failed to stop and took a circuitous route back to West Park when your vehicle was in a patently dangerous state. You failed to stop because you knew you were drunk and you knew that you had been involved in an accident.
12. You chose to continue driving your vehicle in circumstances where you should not have been driving at all. This calls for a consecutive sentence of imprisonment. You drove when you were still drunk. You drove too quickly and you drove the van when it was obviously dangerous. The damage to the bodywork of the vehicle as a consequence of the impact with the two pedestrians was severe, presenting an obvious risk of injury to others and you could not even see through the nearside part of your windscreen owing to the damage to the windscreen occasioned by its impact with Dean's body.
13. You deliberately disregarded the safety of other road users having just killed two pedestrians. A member of the public who saw you driving was shocked to see a vehicle being driven with such extensive damage. Debris fell from the vehicle as you drove.
14. You have also pleaded guilty to a Second Indictment on the footing that you were concerned in the supply of a Class A drug, cocaine, as well as a Class B drug, cannabis.
15. We note from the probation report that you reject the independent evidence that you were visibly intoxicated before the collision. The report says you do not agree with the Court's guilty verdict although your advocate says today that you are now reconciled to it. You did, according to the Probation Officer, express regret that the witnesses and the family of your victims were put through the ordeal of a trial. In respect of the drugs offences, you do not regard yourself as having caused anyone any harm. It is unsurprising in those circumstances that the Probation Officer observes that there is a tendency for you to minimise and justify your behaviour. The likelihood of your re-conviction is high, with the principal factors being your alcohol and drug misuse and your unwillingness to take responsibility for your actions.
16. The maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving in Jersey is 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum sentence for failing to stop is 6 months' imprisonment. The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 2 years' imprisonment.
17. We accept that the consecutive terms of imprisonment are generally not imposed for offences which arise out of the same act and have been referred to authority which states that the total sentence should take into account the number of deaths caused by dangerous driving but that it is generally wrong in principle to impose consecutive sentences.
18. In the circumstances, we accept that the maximum sentence for the collision which caused the deaths of Dean and Charlie is 10 years imprisonment.
19. It is difficult for us to put into words the anguish and suffering that has resulted from the deaths for which you were wholly responsible. We have read the moving statements of Dean's partner and Charlie's mother Ashley and the statement of Dean's mother Kay. We can well understand why they say that their lives have been devastated. The family of Dean and Charlie face their own life sentence.
20. People who drive as you did and take the lives of two innocent victims must expect to be severely punished.
21. The sentences we impose are as follows:
(i) Count 1 - 10 years' imprisonment and 12 years disqualification from driving.
(ii) Count 2 - 10 years' imprisonment concurrent and 12 years disqualification from driving.
(iii) Count 3 - 6 months' imprisonment concurrent and 12 months disqualification from driving.
(iv) Count 4 - 2 years' imprisonment consecutive and 5 years disqualification from driving.
(v) Count 5 - no separate penalty.
Counts 1b and Counts 2b left on the file.
22. Second Indictment:
(i) Count 1 - 3 years' imprisonment.
(ii) Count 2 - 6 months' imprisonment concurrent.
Making a total of 15 years imprisonment and 12 years disqualification from driving.
23. We ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs seized in this case and your mobile phone.