[2010]JRC230
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
15th December 2010
|
Before :
|
W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Tibbo and Liddiard.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
S
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court,
following guilty pleas to the following charges:
First Indictment
|
1 count of:
|
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to
Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey)
Law 1978 (Count 1).
|
Second
Indictment
|
1 count of:
|
Breaking and entry and larceny (Count
1).
|
These offences placed the defendant in breach
of previous Court Orders dated 7th April, 2nd July and 27th July, 2010.
Age: 15.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
First Indictment
The defendant in the course of being
breached for non-compliance with the Royal
Court’s previous non-custodial sentences
imposed on three previous occasions.
Non-compliance consisted of failing to attend probation appointments,
failing to undertake community service work and persistent breaches of the
curfew which had been imposed as part of a Probation Order. Non-compliance persisted despite a
personal meeting with the Solicitor-General. Prior to representation the defendant
re-offended by possessing two cannabis “joints” and participating
in a breaking and entry and larceny at commercial premises. Offences committed at night at the time
which placed him in breach of the curfew condition.
The defendant was not co-operative
in interview in relation to the serious offence of breaking and entry and
larceny. He only made some admissions
after his fingerprints were found on stolen cigarettes and DNA found at point of entry into premises. Sought to minimise his involvement at
all times.
The Crown considered that all three
sub-paragraphs of Article 4(2) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 were applicable and that only an
immediate custodial sentence was justified.
Details of Mitigation:
The Crown
Guilty pleas and age; still only
15. Did not have the benefit of
co-operation. Had consistently
shown an unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities provided to him
by the Court on the non-custodial sentences. Appalling criminal record.
The Defence
Guilty plea; apologised for
behaviour; had had a taste of custody on remand and now appreciated that he
needed to change his lifestyle; wanted to make a new start. Recent welfare reports suggested he was
now facing up to what he had done and how he needed to change his behaviour and
his general lifestyle. Emphasised
his young age.
Previous Convictions:
8 convictions for a total of 24
offences including numerous for larceny, robbery, common assault, motoring,
public order, making hoax telephone calls and supply of a controlled drug.
Conclusions:
First Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
2 weeks’ youth detention.
|
Second Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
12 months’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
Indictment dated 7th April, 2010
|
Count 1:
|
2 months’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
No separate penalty.
|
First Indictment dated 2nd July, 2010
|
Count 1:
|
3 weeks’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
Second Indictment dated 2nd July, 2010
|
Count 1:
|
3 weeks’ youth detention, consecutive
to First Indictment dated 2nd
July 2010 but concurrent to current First Indictment.
|
Breach of Community Service Order
dated 23rd July
2010 – has completed 10% of hours ordered: 6 week’s
youth detention, concurrent.
Total: 12 months’ youth detention.
Probation and Community Service
Orders to be discharged.
Forfeiture and destruction of
drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
S was before the Court
to be sentenced for an offence of possession cannabis and an offence of
breaking and entry and larceny of cigarettes with a value of £500. By virtue of his conviction for these
offences he was in breach of the Court’s Orders for offences of robbery,
obstruction, larceny of two cans of lager and in respect of which the defendant
had previously received non-custodial sentences so far. He also breached the terms of the Royal Court
sentences imposed in April and July.
He had been given every warning to try and persuade him to get him away
from his criminal behaviour. He was
told in April that the system will win.
He could beat the system.
The Court quoted from Article 4 of the Young Offenders law and it was
considered that the appropriate sentence, and only sentence, was a
custodial. The Court considers the
conclusions of the Crown to be correct but was minded to vary in some small detail. The Court considered that the most
serious offence was that of the robbery where the co-accused received sentences
of 2 years and 1 year’s imprisonment. This was an extremely serious
offence. The Court was encouraged
by the contents of the welfare report.
The Court hoped that he would take the opportunity to progress. It was his decision and if he did not
change his life, then things were likely to get worse and worse for him.
First Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
2 weeks’ youth detention.
|
Second Indictment
|
Count 1:
|
6 months’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
Indictment dated 7th April 2010
|
Count 1:
|
10 months’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
No separate penalty.
|
First Indictment dated 2nd July 2010
|
Count 1:
|
2 weeks’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
Second Indictment dated 2nd July 2010
|
Count 1:
|
2 weeks’ youth detention, concurrent
to current First Indictment.
|
Breach of Community
Service Order dated 23rd
July 2010 – has completed 10% of hours ordered.
Total: 10 months’ youth detention.
Probation and
Community Service Orders to be discharged.
Forfeiture and
destruction of drugs ordered.
J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate P. M. T. Tracey for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1.
S, you are
before us today to be sentenced on an Indictment for possession of a controlled
drug, namely cannabis, and a Second Indictment for breaking and entry and
larceny of cigarettes with an estimated value of £500. By virtue of your convictions for those
offences you also come back before us for other offences of robbery,
obstructing the police in the execution of their duty and the theft of two cans
of lager, for which you have been given non-custodial sentences so far, and
because you have breached the terms of the Orders which the Court have made,
you fall to have those sentences reviewed.
2.
Looking
back at the judgments of this Court in April and July, three of them in total
but two in July last year, it is obvious that you have had every single warning
that could have been given to try to persuade you away from criminal activity. And I said to you in April, if you
recall, that the system was always going to win; you cannot beat the system. It is the job of the police to ensure
that the law is kept; it is the job of the prosecutors to bring cases before
the Court; it is the job of the Courts to make sure that you are sentenced for
the offences for which you have committed.
And the sooner you learn that the community will have its way, the
better.
3.
The Criminal
Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 requires that we do not send a
person to youth detention unless the Court considers that there is no other
method of dealing with the person which is appropriate and three reasons are
given. The first is that a person
has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or
unwilling to respond to them. Just
dealing with 2010 by itself it is clear that you do have a history of failure to
respond to non-custodial penalties, but of course it is worse than that,
because your record shows that you have had other non-custodial penalties for
several years before 2010 and have not responded to them. In the circumstances the Court finds
that Article 4(2)(a) is met and that no other way of dealing with you is
appropriate on that ground. The
Court does not reach its conclusion on the basis of Article 4(2)(b) that only a
custodial sentence is adequate to protect the public from serious harm, but we
do think that paragraph (c) is met, namely that the totality of the offending
is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. That is to say when we look at the
offending which we are dealing with today, as a whole, it is in our view
appropriate that a sentence of youth detention be imposed, and that is indeed
the only sentence which, in our view, it is appropriate to impose upon
you.
4.
Broadly
speaking, the Court is of the view that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate
are correct, but we are going to vary them in a couple of minor respects. For possession of cannabis the sentence
is 2 weeks’ youth detention; for breaking and entry and larceny of the
cigarettes we are going to reduce the conclusions from 12 months to 6 months
and I want to tell you why. We
think the 12 months might well have been the right sentence for this offence if
you had been an adult but, taking into account your guilty plea, and
particularly taking into account your age and taking into account the
circumstances which surround the offence, we have reached the conclusion that 6
months’ youth detention is the right sentence for that particular offence
and so you are sentenced on that Count on the Indictment to 6 months’
youth detention. I now go back to
the matters which are outstanding.
In relation to obstructing the police in the execution of their duty we
substitute for the penalty of community service a sentence of 2 weeks’
youth detention; for the theft of two cans of lager, substituting the Community
Service Order previously imposed, we sentence you to 2 weeks’ youth detention. Insofar as the robbery is concerned we
note the Crown had previously moved for 2 months’ youth detention, we do
not think that even remotely comes near reflecting the seriousness of that
offence. You may remember that your
co-accused in that case received 2 years and 12 months’ youth detention
for their part in that robbery and recognising that your part in it was on a
different factual basis we nonetheless think that robbery is an extremely
serious offence; we have taken into account the fact that you were 14 at the
time the offence was committed and indeed the Court took that into account when
you were sentenced previously; it had jurisdiction to sentence you to youth
detention but decided to give you every opportunity previously and sentenced
you in a different way and put you on probation originally and then
subsequently you were given community service. So you have had your opportunities and
have rejected them and the Court now is going to substitute for the previous
sentences imposed in relation to the robbery a sentence of 10 months’
youth detention.
5.
The Court
orders that each of those sentences should be served concurrently, so the total
youth detention will be 10 months and not 12 months as requested by the
Crown. And one of the things that
has encouraged us to do that, and it is, I hope, going to be treated by you as
a form of encouragement, is that the welfare report which has been submitted to
us by your counsel shows that you have made good progress at Greenfields. I very much hope that you will take the
opportunity in the next months spent in custody to continue that good progress
because at the end of the day, no-one else can make decisions for your future
but you. If you continue offending,
you will find that things will just get worse and worse and worse. I have said it to you before, the
Solicitor-General said it to you in different circumstances, and it remains
true. You think about that long and
hard while you are serving that sentence.
Those are the sentences which are now imposed, as I say making a total
of 10 months’ youth detention.
6.
We order
the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in
the Superior Court of Jersey.
AG-v-M
C and S [2010] JRC
071.
AG-v-S [2010] JRC 123.
AG-v-S [2010] JRC 137.
AG-v-CB
CS GS and RR [2008] JRC
131.