Vibert v AG

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: The Bailiff
• Judgment Date: 20 December 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] JRC 237
• Date: 20 December 2012

[2012] JRC 237

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Nicolle.

Cyril John Vibert

and

The Attorney General

Mr Vibert appeared on his own behalf.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Attorney General.

Authorities

Magistrate's Court (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law 1949.

Leeds United -v- Admatch [2009] JLR 186.

Appeal against sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 5th November, 2012.

The Bailiff

1 This matter is listed as an application by Mr Vibert for leave to appeal out of time against the sentence imposed for seven parking offences by the Magistrate's Court on 5 ^th November. However, for reasons which we shall explain in a moment, we do not think that that is actually a correct description of the procedural position. In order to explain why this is so, we should recount briefly the procedural history of the matter culminating in this morning's hearing.

2 On 27 ^th April, 2012, the appellant was charged with five parking offences committed on five different days in January and February. Not guilty pleas were entered. The cases were adjourned periodically because the appellant had appealed to the Royal Court on a point of law against an earlier parking charge of which he had been convicted and it was thought that the decision of the Royal Court would be relevant to the outstanding charges. In due course the decision of the Royal Court was given and the five charges were listed for trial before the Magistrate's Court on 12 ^th October. Nine prosecution witnesses were there to be called.

3 Following various submissions to the Assistant Magistrate the appellant elected to withdraw from those proceedings and left the Court. The Assistant Magistrate proceeded to hear the witnesses and she convicted the appellant in his absence of the five parking charges. Sentence was fixed for 25 ^th October. On that date the appellant failed to appear. Accordingly he was arrested and brought before the Court on 26 ^th October. Two further parking charges were laid on that day relating to offences on 26 ^th September and 24 ^th October, 2012. The appellant refused to enter a plea and accordingly the Assistant Magistrate entered not guilty pleas on his behalf. The trial date was fixed for 1 ^st November. On that date the appellant again did not attend. In his absence the Assistant Magistrate heard from two witnesses and convicted him of the two further parking offences. She also convicted him of contempt of court in relation to his non-appearance on the 25 ^th October. An arrest order was issued and he was brought before the Court on 5 ^th November. On that occasion the Assistant Magistrate found him guilty of a second charge of contempt relating to his non-appearance on 1 ^st November.

4 She sentenced the appellant to 7 days' imprisonment, consecutive, on the two counts of contempt of court. In relation to the seven parking offences, he was fined £70 on each count i.e. £490 in total; she ordered him to serve a default sentence of 6 days' imprisonment in respect of each count, that to be consecutive. In other words, 42 days imprisonment in total. He was ordered to pay the fines at the rate of £30 per week commencing after his release.

5 The appellant filed a notice of appeal immediately, indeed it was the same day. That appeal was expressed to be against conviction and sentence in respect of both the parking offences and the two counts of contempt of court. It follows that the appellant did appeal in respect of the parking offences against both conviction and sentence and therefore he has no need now to seek leave to appeal out of time. That is why we say that the matter as originally listed does not reflect the position. We place no blame whatsoever on the appellant in this respect; he was acting with the assistance of those at the prison who no doubt were trying to help him achieve the best outcome and the point we have raised is a technical one.

6 There is however a complication. The appellant's appeal came before this Court on 29 ^th November. At that stage it appeared to be an appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of both the parking offences and the contempt of court because that is what the notice of appeal said. But at the beginning of the hearing the appellant confirmed to this Court that he was no longer pursuing any appeal in respect of the parking charges. He was only appealing against conviction and sentence in respect of the two contempt charges. The Court proceeded to hear argument on those two charges and after doing so, it dismissed the appeals both against conviction and sentence in respect of the contempt charges. Accordingly the appellant returned to serve the balance of the 14 days sentence, having been granted bail pending appeal by the Royal Court on 9 ^th November. The Court said it would give reasons later and I regret that we have not yet been able to do so.

7 In our judgment there is no doubt that on the 29 ^th November, the appellant abandoned his appeals against conviction and sentence in respect of the parking offences. He did so by informing the Court orally that that was what he was doing. It is of course correct that Article 19(1) of the Magistrate's Court ( Miscellaneous Provisions)(Jersey) Law 1949 is in the following terms:-

“(1) An appellant may abandon an appeal under Article 17 by giving notice in writing to the Judicial Greffier, not later than the third day before the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal.”

8 The appellant did not in this case give any such written notice. However it is clear to us that that provision enables an appeal to be abandoned...