Petty v Miller (Police Sergeant)

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2012
• Date: 05 November 2012
• Docket Number: Appellate Jurisdiction 2012 No 35
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

2012 Bda LR 87

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

Appellate Jurisdiction 2012 No 35

Between:

Adam Petty

Appellant

and

Fiona Miller (police Sergeant)

Respondent

Mr P Sanderson for the Appellant

Ms K King for the Respondent

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

Grant v R; Lamb v MillerBDLR[2012] Bda LR 17

James v HallUNK [1972] 2 All ER 59

Chatters v BurkeUNK [1986] 3 All ER 168

Drink driving — Driving unlicensed and uninsured — Obligatory sentence of disqualification — Circumstances to take into account

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT of Kawaley CJ

Introductory

1. The Appellant in this case appeals against the sentences imposed in respect of a series of traffic offences in respect of which he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court on 8^th September, 2012. The principal challenge relates to the sentence imposed for the offence which charged that he:

‘On the 14^th day of July, 2012, in Pembroke Parish, did drive an Extreme motorised scooter in Woodbourne Avenue whilst [his] ability to drive that vehicle was impaired by alcohol.’

2. The other related offences were using an unlicensed auxiliary cycle contrary to section 52 of the Motor Car Act 1951 and driving a motor vehicle which was uninsured contrary to section 3 of the Motor Car Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act 1943.

3. The Learned Senior Magistrate imposed the obligatory 12 months imprisonment for the offence under section 35A of the Road Traffic Act. He also imposed fines of $800 (for this offence) and $250 and $500 respectively in respect of the unlicensed driving and no insurance charges.

Legal principles governing special reasons for not imposing an obligatory period of disqualification

4. The legal principles which are relied upon arise from the fact that the Traffic Offences (Penalties) Act 1976 section 4 provides that, notwithstanding any obligatory penalty of disqualification set out in the Schedule to the Act, the Court has the discretion to impose a lesser penalty, or no period of disqualification at all, if special reasons are found to exist.

5. Mr Sanderson for the Appellant drew three authorities to the attention of the Court on the question of what constitutes special reasons. The first was the case of Grant v R; Lamb v MillerBDLR[2012] Bda LR 17 (Ground CJ). The second case was James v HallUNK[1972] 2 All ER 59. The third was Chatters v BurkeUNK[1986] 3 All ER 168.

6. It was essentially common ground that special reasons must relate to the...