[2006]JRC114

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18^th August, 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Liam Alan De Guelle

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty pleas to:

Age:  23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1, De Guelle committed the offence of attempted robbery with one Andrew Charles Sangster.  Sangster was sentenced to 12 months youth detention by the Royal Court for this offence on 6^th January 2006.  De Guelle was neither indicted, not sentenced with Sangster owing to the fact that he had absconded from the Island in breach of his bail, granted in the Magistrate’s Court, and had yet to be apprehended.  The event of De Guelle absconding forms the basis of count 3 of the Indictment.  On Tuesday 10^th May 2005, De Guelle had been out drinking with Sangster and others for much of the day.  Later that afternoon, De Guelle, Sangster and another female attended at the home address of a 70 year old man whom they vaguely knew.  The man was frail and of limited mobility.  Sangster had met him earlier that day when he (the victim) had been on his way to the bank, a fact which the victim unwisely disclosed.  The 3 youths were allowed into the flat and followed the victim into his lounge, which he also used as his bedroom.  Sangster then said “I want £20”.  The victim was shocked and replied “No”.  Sangster then raised his fist and delivered a hard punch to the victim’s left temple which caused him to fall to the floor.  Sangster then stood over the victim and reached into his right trouser pocket in order to search it.  There was nothing there to take so Sangster and the other female left the flat.  De Guelle who had been part of the joint enterprise, felt guilty and remained with the victim for approximately 10 minutes in an attempt to comfort him.  He then made off for People’s Park in an attempt to locate Sangster.  The victim of the attempted robbery suffered a bruise on the left side of his forehead and a swollen temple.  The events that followed from the basis of count 2.

Count 2, at approximately 1715 hours the same day, De Guelle, having left the victim’s flat after Sangster, caught up with Sangster in People’s Park.  De Guelle was angry with Sangster for the earlier assault on the victim and went to the park with the intention of confronting him about it.  An exchange of words took place between De Guelle and Sangster, and De Guelle and De Guelle threw a punch at Sangster.  In retaliation, Sangster committed a grave and criminal assault on De Guelle for which he was sentenced on the 6^th January 2006.  De Guelle was admitted to hospital with a suspected broken cheek bone, jaw and nose, whilst Sangster suffered only minor bruising.

Count 3, De Guelle was first presented before the Magistrate’s Court for the offences that form the basis of counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment on the 12^th May 2005.  He was remanded on conditional bail to appear before the Magistrate’s Court again on the 27^th May 2005.  On the 24^th May 2005 the Court was informed that De Guelle had breached his bail conditions and his arrest was ordered.  On the 27^th May 2005, De Guelle failed to appear in the Magistrate’s Court thereby placing himself in breach of the Court Order dated 12^th May 2005.  De Guelle’s arrest was again ordered.  De Guelle was eventually located in the United Kingdom and he was arrested and brought back to Jersey.  He was presented before the Magistrate’s Court on the 12^th April 2006.

Breach of Probation, by absconding originally and in consequence of entering guilty pleas to counts 1-3 of the Indictment on the 7^th July 2005, De Guelle put himself in breach of a sentence of 12 months probation imposed by the Magistrate’s Court on the 7^th March 2005, for an offence of breaking and entry.  De Guelle had, in fact, already admitted to a breach of that Probation Order on the 6^th April 2005, when he pleaded guilty to an offence of shop lifting on the 21^st March 2005.  For that offence he was sentenced (on the 4^th May 2005) to a concurrent 10 months Probation Order.  The facts relating to the offence of breaking and entry are briefly that on the 3^rd January 2005, De Guelle and others (including his partner) broke into commercial premises in town, by smashing a lower glass panel of the front door with a crow bar.  Once inside the premises, numerous items of jewellery were stolen including 20 watches and 14 rings, although the value of those items is not known.  Most of the property was later recovered.  The facts in relation to the shoplifting offence are that, on the 21^st March 2005, De Guelle, together with his partner, entered a supermarket and put items worth £11.01 in a shopping basket.  They were then seen on CCTV to leave the shop without paying for those items.  They were arrested later that day in some nearby gardens, still in possession of the stolen items.

Details of Mitigation:

De Guelle pleaded guilty.  Although count 1 was a joint offence and De Guelle was a party to the agreement to extract money, De Guelle did not offer any violence.  To his credit De Guelle remained with the victim after he (the victim) has been struck and Sangster had fled the scene.  In passing sentence the Court commented that this showed some good in the accused.  The Assault that formed the basis of count 2 was a single punch to the head of his co-accused, delivered in anger for the assault on the attempted robbery.  De Guelle has the continued support of his girlfriend who is due to give birth to their first child in September.  The Court also noted that De Guelle had served the equivalent of a little over 6 months in prison on remand and, prior to being put on probation by the Magistrate in 2005, he had spent 6 weeks in custody on remand.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Plus additional 6 months’ imprisonment, consecutive for breach of probation, for offence of breaking and entry and 1 week’s consecutive for shoplifting.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Breach of Probation: 6 months’ imprisonment and 1 week’s imprisonment to run concurrently to Count 1.

Total:  6 months’ imprisonment.

S. M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has pleaded guilty to an attempted robbery of an elderly man and to a related common assault which took place in May 2005.  He has also pleaded guilty to contempt of court by absconding before trial.  There are also offences for which the defendant was on probation at the time of these later offences and he is to be sentenced for those offences too.

2.        In relation to the attempted robbery De Guelle did not offer any violence to the victim although he was party to an agreement to extract money from him.  In fact the victim was punched to the head by a co-accused.   The co-accused rummaged in the man’s pockets while he was on the ground.

3.        The defendant was angry at this assault and later approached the co-accused in a park and punched him, thus committing the common assault for which he is to be sentenced.  In the following fracas, however, the defendant was attacked by the co-accused and suffered quite serious injuries involving a broken nose and fractures to the cheek bone and jaw. 

4.        It is an important mitigating factor in relation to the attempted robbery that the defendant did remain behind for ten minutes comforting the victim of the attempted robbery after the co-accused had left.  We think that this shows that there is some good in the defendant.  He has spent the equivalent of six months in custody on remand since being brought back to Jersey and he also served 6 weeks’ imprisonment on remand prior to being placed on probation for the breaking and entering and larceny.

5.        With some hesitation, the Court has reached the conclusion that you have been punished enough, and that we can impose a sentence today which will allow for your immediate release.  We want you to understand that we are accepting the submission made by your counsel, that you have turned the corner.  We are impressed by the fact that you are still supported by your girlfriend, who is in Court.  You are shortly to become a father and you will have new and important responsibilities in that respect.  We want you to understand that if you come back before the Court, at a later stage your record will bear a note of all these convictions and you are unlikely to be treated in the way in which the Court is treating you today.  We hope we will not see you again and that you will take advantage of this and make something of your life in the future.

6.        We are going to impose on Count 1, a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment; on Count 2, a sentence of 1 week’s imprisonment, concurrent; on Count 3, 3 months’ imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 6 months’ imprisonment.  We discharge the probation order and we impose, as moved for by the Crown Advocate, a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment in relation to the breaking and entering and 1 week’s imprisonment in relation to the larceny but we make all those sentences concurrent so that the total sentence is one of 6 months’ imprisonment.

No Authorities