Inferior Number Sentencing – larceny – receiving stolen property.

[2015]JRC098

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 May 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Joshua Peter O’Brien

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

During the afternoon of 25^th July, 2014, two vehicles were broken into along quiet country lanes off La Rue du Tapon, St Saviour, both close in time and proximity.  Petrol-powered and electrical tools were stolen from a workman’s van and a handbag from a car.  Both crimes were reported promptly and Scenes of Crime Officers were able to gather forensic evidence.  On 30^th July, 2014, O’Brien and another were arrested following the receipt of forensic examination results; O’Brien gave a ‘no comment’ interview, the other denied any knowledge of any thefts.  Prior to release pending further investigations O’BRrien informed a Police Officer where some of the stolen property might be found; the information was correct.  On 14^th November, 2014, Police Officers attended O’Brien’s address on an unrelated matter and seized a bicycle, matching the description of one recently stolen, with serial numbers filed away.  O’Brien was interviewed with regard to the bicycle and gave ‘no comment’ responses.  On 25^th November, 2014, O’Brien and a female friend checked in to Kensington Place Guest House; they stayed for two nights and following their departure the caretaker realised a bicycle had been stolen from the back yard and two television sets were missing from the premises.  Enquiries led the police to O’Brien’s address, where he and the recently stolen items were found; he claimed they had been stolen by a male acquaintance.  When charged on 22^nd December O’BRrien admitted ‘receiving’ the bicycle with the serial numbers filed away believing it likely to have been stolen but denied the other offences; he was remanded into custody. 

On 19^th February, 2015, counsel for O’Brien advanced a basis of plea with regard to the July 2014 offences, exculpating a then co-accused. 

At indictment on 10^th April, 2015, O’Brien entered guilty pleas on all counts however not accepting the handbag necessarily contained all items listed on the indictment, particularly the £7,250:00 gold watch and other jewellery. 

The offending spanned several months and O’Brien had numerous convictions of a similar nature. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas but an unenviable record, no longer a youth and limited remorse, however a realistic approach in not arguing for anything other than a custodial sentence. 

Previous Convictions:

77 previous convictions, including 22 theft and kindred offences. 

Conclusions:

Total: 27 months’ imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced for three counts of larceny and two counts of receiving stolen property.  The Court accepts that the larceny was opportunistic and, to a significant extent, fuelled by alcohol but alcohol is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor.  The larcenies from the private vehicles caused significant inconvenience to the owners and significant loss to one of them.  You smashed windows in order to gain access to those vehicles.  You have consistently demonstrated a casual disregard for the property of other people and you have shown no real remorse for the effect on your victims until the Court has received a letter through your counsel this morning.  It is clear that for you alcohol and other drugs are significant factors in your offending.  You have a very substantial record with 77 previous convictions including 23 for theft and similar offences, including those from unattended vehicles. 

2.        We have considered very carefully indeed all that your counsel has said on your behalf and we have read, with care, the letter that you have handed up to the Court.  The Court notes in particular the last section of your letter and expresses, very strongly, the hope that you will comply with the aims that you set out there and that you will use the period in prison to readjust your life and come out and take your place as a useful and decent member of society. 

3.        But in the light of the social enquiry report, and of the fact that all of the other options open to the Court have been tried without success, we think that a sentence of imprisonment is both correct and inevitable and we see no reason to depart from the conclusions of the Crown on this occasion. 

4.        Accordingly, you are sentenced to imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2 of 15 months’ on each of those to run concurrent and on Counts 3, 4 and 5 for 12 months’ on each of those to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Counts 1 and 2, making a total period of 27 months’ imprisonment. 

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.

Wylie-v-AG [2002] JLR N6.

Wylie-v-AG 2002/13.

R-v-Webbe and Others [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 22.