A MOTORIST convicted of failing to stop for a police officer has failed in a bid to overturn the verdict on appeal.
Gary John Hirst told the Royal Court, hearing his appeal against the original Magistrate’s Court conviction, that he had not stopped for the police officer carrying out road checks at Les Quennevais because he had not seen them and therefore had no idea he was required to stop.
In a written judgement published by the Royal Court, it is stated that the appeal could be upheld if the Jurats were satisfied that there was insufficient evidence for the Magistrate’s conclusion.
The court considered the original November 2025 judgement by the Magistrate, Bridget Shaw, which stated that “the Crown proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that a clear, unambiguous signal to stop was given to the defendant” and that the officer and her signal “could clearly be seen by a reasonable motorist, there was ample light, she was identifiable as a police officer, and she gave the signal in plenty of time”.
Hirst’s evidence, as reported in the judgement, was that he had visited St Brelade’s Social Club at around 4pm on the day in question in January 2025, leaving at around 9.45pm having consumed two pints of cider and several non-alcoholic fizzy drinks.
The court heard that while driving past Don Farm, Hirst had seen something on the pavement that fell into the road, causing him to swerve. He put this down to “children messing around” and continued to the Horse and Hound pub, where he had one further drink before walking home.
Jurats Opfermann and Le Heuzé, sitting alongside the Bailiff, Robert MacRae, considered the Magistrate’s judgement that Hirst’s failure to stop “might have been a misjudgement due to alcohol or a desire to avoid the scrutiny of the officers, following consumption of alcohol” and that he has subsequently shown “a remarkable lack of curiosity” as to why police officers had called at his home.
The court heard that ten other motorists, including one aged in their 90s, had noticed the police officer and complied with the direction to stop immediately before Hirst drove past.
Dismissing the appeal, the Royal Court stated that Hirst’s arguments had been “considered with care” but that it considered that “the Magistrate directed herself properly on the law, had regard to all the evidence and reached a verdict with which we cannot interfere”.
Points made during the hearing that officers carrying out roadside checks after dark should be more visible, wearing “high-vis” jackets that were properly fastened and carrying lights or illuminated batons, would be passed onto States of Jersey Police, the judgement confirmed.
