“Appalling” driver fails to convince court Fiat 500 seizure was excessive

Wednesday 19 June 2024

A man who was jailed after building up a 10-year history of motoring offences by age 28 has failed to overturn judge’s decision to seize his modified Fiat 500.

Adam Hawkins, who argued the car seizure was “manifestly excessive”, was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment in February for continuing to break road laws despite previous driving bans and community service orders.

Despite being banned from driving after a conviction for causing serious injury by dangerous driving, he was spotted driving in December when he went to collect a takeaway from Domino's Pizza in St Saviour's Road.

An off-duty police officer also noticed that Hawkins' car had a windscreen insurance disc for a different vehicle. Hawkins ran away when he saw the officer but was detained and interviewed.

The court heard that in addition to causing injury by dangerous driving, from March 2021 onwards, he had a string of previous convictions for offences such as speeding, driving while disqualified, driving without insurance or a licence and displaying the insurance for a different vehicle – stretching back to 2014.

Defending Hawkins during a hearing at the Magistrate's Court, Advocate Chris Baglin said his client accepted that his driving record was "appalling".

It was also accepted that the custodial threshold was passed, and that Hawkins still had outstanding fines.

"You have 10 years of committing offences in motor vehicles, with disregard to the law and disregard to court orders," the Magistrate said.

"There comes a point when the court is not going to tolerate it any longer. The court has run out of non-custodial options."

But while Hawkins did not take issue with the sentence or the 24-month driving ban, he did seek to challenge Magistrate Bridget Shaw's order that his car should be forfeited and brought an appeal to the Royal Court.

At the time, the exact value of the car was not known, Magistrate was told that the car had been bought six years ago for £7,000. Since then, "a lot of money has gone into it", including spending on new wheels, seats and interior stereos.

Making the order under the Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) Jersey Law 2001, the Magistrate said: "I do not know the exact value of this car.

"It was purchased for £7,000 six years ago and so it will have devalued anyway, even though you have put bits and pieces on it, and it might be valuable to you, but you are not a driver and you are not going to be a driver for at least the next two years.

"So this vehicle has been used in other offences and I am very much taking that into account. It is not just on one occasion that you have committed a driving offence using your car."

The appeal was heard in the Royal Court last month, will a full judgment only made public this week.

During the hearing, Advocate Baglin argued on behalf of Hawkins that a forfeiture order shouldn't have been able to extend to the car, and that in any case the decision was "manifestly excessive".

Having reviewed previous cases, the Royal Court found that the Magistrate did have the power to make the forfeiture order.

The judgment explained that it was possible where there is a "deliberate use of property for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of an offence", such as in the case of driving while disqualified, without insurance or with excess alcohol.

The court noted, however, that such an order would be unlikely to apply in the case of parking offences "because the confiscation of a vehicle would offend the principle that punishment must fit the crime".

Turning to the remaining question of "proportionality" of the sentence, the Royal Court concluded that the order was not "manifestly excessive" and dismissed the appeal.

The Deputy Bailiff, Robert MacRae, was presiding, sitting with Jurats David Le Heuzé and Mike Berry.