–But warns: ’Court must not be weakly merciful’

GODWIN Patterson, who, in 1996 committed an offence of causing death by dangerous driving while his disqualification for holding or obtaining a driver’s licence was still in force, was given the maximum penalty by a magistrate of five years imprisonment.

Patterson appealed, on the grounds of severity of sentence. The Guyana Court of Appeal, constituted by Chancellor Cecil Kennard and Justices of Appeal Mr. Lennox Perry and Mr. Prem Persaud, heard the case.
That Court lamented the prevalence of such offences, especially with respect to minibus drivers, plus the fact that the accused had committed the offence while being disqualified; but because the accused had pleaded guilty to the offence, the Appellate Court did not interfere with the Magistrate’s disqualification of 10 years, but reduced the sentence from five (5) to four (4) years.
Earlier, the Appellate Court had asked whether it was wise that the appellant should be sentenced to maximum penalty of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualification from holding or obtaining driver’s licence from a previous offence was still in force.
The facts of the case disclosed that the appellant was convicted of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He was also disqualified from obtaining or holding a driver’s licence.
At the time he committed this latest offence, a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence was still in force against the Appellant. The Appellant appealed against sentence.
The Appellate Court held: In all the circumstances, to sentence the Appellant to the maximum term of five years, even though he had previous convictions, and bearing in mind that he was also ordered to be disqualified from driving for 10 years, was to give inadequate consideration to the fact that he had pleaded guilty to the offence.
Cases referred to: R. v. De Haan (1967) 3 All E.R. 618; R.v.Radich (1954) NZIR 84; Ramphal v. Thomas (1955) LRBG 234. Mr. Mortimer Cumberbatch appeared for the Appellant, while Mr. Ian Chang, Director of Public Prosecutions (Ag.) represented the Respondent.
Chancellor Kennard, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said:
“In the Magistrate’s Court, the Appellant had pleaded guilty to the offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for five (5) years.
“Additionally, he was ordered by the magistrate to be disqualified from obtaining or holding a driver’s licence of any class for a period of ten (10) years.
“The facts, as narrated by the prosecuting officer, revealed that on Tuesday 9th of April, 1996, at about 8:30pm, the Appellant drove Minibus No. BFF 2479 at a fast rate of speed, north along the western half of Friendship Public Road, and in his attempt to overtake another minibus, which was ahead of him on the said western side of the Public Road, he went across to the eastern half of the said road and struck down Jermin Johnson, who was riding a pedal cycle southwards on the eastern side of the said Public Road. Jermin Johnson died shortly after being struck down.
“The Appellant, a few months before, had been convicted by the said magistrate for the offence of Dangerous Driving, and had been fined a sum of $750,00 or two months imprisonment in default. In addition, he was ordered to be disqualified for a period of three months from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.
“At the time of the present offence, this disqualification was still in force. In addition to the present offence, the Appellant had been charged with the offence of driving whilst disqualified, to which he had also pleaded guilty before Magistrate William Ramlal.
“The appellant had pleaded guilty to all the offences referred to earlier in this judgment before Magistrate Ramlal. The Appellant has appealed to this Court, on the ground of severity of sentence. It is a notorious fact that the incidence of Dangerous Driving on the roads of this country has been increasing with alarming proportions within recent times, particularly among minibus drivers, and, therefore, those of us who are involved in the administration of Justice in this country must constantly bear this in mind when imposing sentence for such offences, as life is sacred; and once taken, can never be restored.
“In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Fair; J, said in R. v Radich [1954] NZLR 84:
One of the main purposes of punishment is to protect the public from the commission of such crimes by making it clear to the offender and to other persons with similar impulses that if they yield to them, they will meet with severe punishment.
“In all civilized countries, in all ages, that has been the main purpose of punishment, and it still continues to be so. The fact that punishment does not entirely prevent all similar crimes should not obscure the cogent fact that the fear of severe punishment does, and will, prevent the commission of many that would have been committed, if it was thought that the offender could escape without punishment, or with only a light punishment.
“If a court is weakly merciful, and does not impose a sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, it fails in its duty to see that the sentences are such, as to operate as a powerful factor to prevent the commission of such offences.
“In deciding whether or not I should interfere with any part of the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate, I bore in mind that the Appellant had been under disqualification from driving at the time when he had committed the present offence.
“The behaviour of the Appellant clearly demonstrates that he has no regard for the laws of this country, and, therefore, he must be kept away from the wheel of a motor vehicle for a long time.
“In the circumstances, I see no justifiable reason for interfering with the period of disqualification ordered by the learned magistrate.
“There is no doubt that credit should be given when a person pleads guilty to the fact that that person is facing up to realities, and shows some sign of repentance to justify a reduction from what would otherwise have been the sentence.
“The maximum period of imprisonment which the magistrate could have imposed is five (5) years. In R/ v/. De Haan (supra), Edmund Davies, LJ, said at 619:
‘It is undoubtedly right that a confession of guilt should tell in favour of an accused person for that is clearly in the public interest.’
“I have come to the conclusion that, taking an all-round view of the circumstances of this case, to sentence the Appellant to the maximum term of imprisonment of five (5) years, even though he had previous convictions, and bearing in mind that the Appellant was also ordered to be disqualified from driving for a period of ten (10) years, is to give inadequate consideration to the fact that he had pleaded guilty to the offence.
“In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the magistrate is reduced from five (5) years to four (4) years.”