[2008]JRC198
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
21st November 2008
Before :
|
Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and
Jurats Clapham and Newcombe.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
David Hall
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
following guilty pleas to the following charges:
1 count of:
|
Breaking and entry and larceny. (Count 1).
|
1 count of:
|
Larceny. (Count 2).
|
3 counts of:
|
Having in a public place an offensive
weapon, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey)
Law 2000. (Counts 3-5).
|
Age: 27.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
On 28th May, 2008, Hall and an unnamed
accomplice filled his car at Robert’s Garage, Springfield Road, St
Helier, with petrol worth £20 and left the garage without
paying. (Count 2).
An hour later, Hall and his accomplice
criminally broke and entered the premises known as the Rectory, La
Marquanderie, in the Parish of St Brelade, and stole a safe and its contents,
and a laptop computer. The
owner’s son arrived at the Rectory to find Hall and his accomplice trying
to load the safe into the back of Hall’s car. There was a brief confrontation after
which Hall and the accomplice made a hasty get away, leaving the safe in the
driveway. The laptop, however, was
never recovered. (Count 1).
Hall was arrested in his car the
following morning. At the time he
had in his possession a Ghurka knife (Count 3), an ASP extendable baton (Count
4) and a lock knife (Count 5).
These offensive weapons had been in his car at the time of the break and
entry.
It was accepted that Hall’s
offending, past and present, had occurred as a result of him needing to fund
his heroin addiction.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty pleas. Remorse. There had been a period of approximately
8 years when he was free from heroin addiction and when he was reported to have
been “a role model” and “sponsor” for other drug
addicts seeking assistance within Narcotics Anonymous.
On arrest Hall had asked to be
placed in custody to assist in dealing with his drug addiction.
Previous Convictions:
3 convictions for 13 previous
offences, including 7 theft and kindred offences and 2 drugs offences.
Conclusions:
Count 1:
|
2 years’ and 6 months’
imprisonment.
|
Count 2:
|
1 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 1 but concurrent to Counts 4 and 5.
|
Count 4:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 1 but concurrent to Counts 3 and 5.
|
Count 5:
|
6 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to
Count 1 but concurrent to Counts 3 and 4.
|
Total: 3 years’ imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of
weapons sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The Court noted that
when confronted by the owner’s son, Hall and his accomplice had fled
rather than fight, and that while the weapons had been in the boot of the car,
they had not been used. The Court
said however that any confrontation with a burglar was extremely distressing
and that the Crown’s recommendations were therefore entirely justified.
The Court however
noted several exceptional circumstances, including the fact that Hall had
already spent 6 months’ on remand (the equivalent to a 9 months’
sentence) and that he had “done excellent work for rehabilitation”
generally, and ordered instead that Hall perform 180 hours’ Community
Service, the alternative of a 12 months’ imprisonment sentence.
Count 1:
|
180 hours’ Community Service Order and
2 years’ Probation Order.
|
Count 2:
|
2 years’ Probation Order, concurrent.
|
Count 3:
|
2 years’ Probation Order, concurrent.
|
Count 4:
|
2 years’ Probation Order, concurrent.
|
Count 5:
|
2 years’ Probation Order, concurrent.
|
Total: 180
hours’ Community Service Order and 2 years’ Probation Order.
Forfeiture and
destruction of weapons ordered.
C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate A. J. Clarke for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1.
David Hall
broke into one of the Island’s rectories
with another man and stole a safe and laptop computer. The two men were interrupted by the
householder returning to the premises and the defendant and his companion
abandoned the safe but took with them the laptop computer which has not been
recovered. The defendant was found
in possession of a baton and a Ghurkha knife but those weapons were in the boot
of his car and were not associated with the break in. No violence was offered to the householder
and indeed, the defendant made himself scarce as quickly as he could. However, as the Court has said on many
occasions, the mere fact of breaking into domestic premises almost always
carries with it a sense of invasion and is extremely distressing to the
householder whose privacy has been disturbed. The Crown Advocate’s conclusions
are accordingly, entirely justified.
2.
The Court
has before it a strong recommendation both from the Probation Officer and from
the Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service, recommending that at this
particular time, the defendant would benefit from a number of non-custodial measures. He has served 6 months on remand in
custody which is the equivalent of a 9 months’ prison sentence. He is a heroin addict who, according to
the Drug and Alcohol Prison Service Manager, has done very good work over the
last 7 years, until his relapse in March 2008, in helping others to overcome
their addiction. Furthermore, the
defendant continues to have support from his parents who are prepared to take
him back into their home and to offer support to the different agencies in
ensuring that he complies with any orders that are made.
3.
We are
going to impose non-custodial sentences upon you because we accept all the
things which your Advocate has said on your behalf. We accept that you did have this relapse
but that you are determined to turn your back on heroin and that you are going
to do your best with the assistance of the different agencies and your parents
to lead a decent life in future. We
are going to punish you nonetheless for the break-in which you committed which,
as I have explained, is a serious offence, but you will not go to prison unless
you fail to comply with these different non-custodial orders.
4.
We are
going to place you on probation for a period of 2 years subject to the usual
conditions that you live and work as directed by your Probation Officer and be
of good behaviour during that time and also that you are liable to a treatment
order which means that you must comply with all the directions of Dr Gafoor or
anyone working under his authority.
We are also going to order you to carry out 180 hours of Community
Service which we declare to be the equivalent of a 12 month prison
sentence. We hope that we are not
going to see you again. We are
giving you a chance and we hope that you take it.
5.
We order
the destruction of the weapons.
Authorities
AG-v-Moreira [2003] JRC 083A.
AG-v-Da
Silva [1997] JRC
218.
AG-v-Le
Lai [2003] JRC
023.
Firearms (Jersey)
Law 2000.
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in
the Superior Court of Jersey.