A PROMINENT Jersey lawyer who was jailed last year for drink driving will be suspended from his profession until the end of this year – but will not be disbarred.
Advocate David Steenson was jailed for seven months last year after getting behind the wheel of his Jaguar, crashing into another car and continuing to drive for over a mile – leaving behind marks in the road that police officers followed to find him.
He pleaded guilty to one count of drink driving, two counts of dangerous driving and one count of failing to stop after an accident in the Magistrate’s Court last August.
Advocate Steenson was released on 19 December after serving two-thirds of his sentence.
The Superior Number of the Royal Court convened in November ahead of his release from prison to decide on a possible professional sanction for breaching the Law Society of Jersey’s Code of Conduct for bringing the profession into disrepute.
Under the terms of the law, the Royal Court could have opted to issue either a private or public reprimand; a fine; a fine with a public reprimand; a suspension from practice up to a maximum of 12 months; or striking off.
In its judgment, the Royal Court admitted that only the two most severe sanctions were being considered, with the Attorney General arguing that the “reputation of the legal profession has been damaged so significantly by the Respondent’s behaviour, that he should be struck from the roll of advocates”.
In suspending Advocate Steenson from practising for 12 months, the Royal Court ruled: “We agree that the offending with which we are dealing was serious and that the respondent was not only intoxicated but, in consequence, was driving dangerously both before and after the collision. He did not appear to know that he had collided with another car, believing that he had collided with a kerb or a wall.
“It was pointed out that mitigation that might be available in a criminal matter is of less effect or import in a disciplinary matter because this court is dealing with a different purpose. The respondent has already paid the price that society demands of him for his offending and we are considering the appropriate sanction from a professional point of view.
“We accept that the respondent is a competent and hard-working member of the legal profession. We have seen testimonials volunteered by more junior colleagues, illustrating times that he has supported and helped them in their own careers.
“We also accept that the respondent is abject in his apology to this court and, indeed, to the victims of his drunk driving. His remorse is entirely genuine in our view.”
The Royal Court judgment stated that the Superior Number “did not think it was necessary” to strike Advocate Steenson off from the legal profession and “remove this respondent’s livelihood”.
“We feel that the appropriate penalty, which for a professional at his stage of career is hard indeed, is a suspension from practice for the maximum period possible, namely twelve months, to commence from the date of his release from prison,” the judgment continued.
“We consider that this penalty is sufficient to deal appropriately with the respondent and to ensure that the respondent in all of the circumstances of this matter and his breach of the code, has been dealt with appropriately.”
Commissioner Sir Timothy Le Cocq was presiding, with Jurats Christensen, Le Cornu, Opfermann, Entwistle and Gardener sitting.
