[2006]JRC114
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
18th August, 2006
Before :
|
Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt. Bailiff, and
Jurats Le Brocq and Newcombe.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Liam Alan De Guelle
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
on guilty pleas to:
1 count of:
|
Attempted robbery. (Count 1).
|
1 count of:
|
Common Assault. (Count 2).
|
1 count of:
|
Contempt of Court. (Count 3).
|
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 6th
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 10th 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 6th 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 12th May 2005. He was remanded on conditional bail to
appear before the Magistrate’s Court again on the 27th May 2005. On the 24th May 2005 the Court was
informed that De Guelle had breached his bail conditions and his arrest was
ordered. On the 27th May 2005, De Guelle
failed to appear in the Magistrate’s Court thereby placing himself in
breach of the Court Order dated 12th
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
12th April 2006.
Breach of Probation, by absconding
originally and in consequence of entering guilty pleas to counts 1-3 of the
Indictment on the 7th
July 2005, De Guelle put himself in breach of a sentence of 12
months probation imposed by the Magistrate’s Court on the 7th 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 6th
April 2005, when he pleaded guilty to an offence of shop lifting on
the 21st March
2005. For that offence
he was sentenced (on the 4th
May 2005) to a concurrent 10 months Probation Order. The facts relating to the offence of
breaking and entry are briefly that on the 3rd 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 21st 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:
Count 1:
|
6 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
1 week’s imprisonment.
|
Count 3:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, all
consecutive.
|
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:
Count 1:
|
3 months’ imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
1 week’s imprisonment concurrent to
Count 1.
|
Count 3:
|
3 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 1.
|
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