Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny - acting in a manner likely to cause
a breach of the peace - possession of cannabis - Class B.
[2019]JRC139
Royal Court
(Samedi)
19 July 2019
|
Before :
|
Anthony John Olsen, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff
of Jersey, and Jurats Blampied and Ronge
|
The Attorney General
-v-
Andrew Scott Page
Sentencing by the Inferior
Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of:
|
Larceny (Count 1).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Acting in a manner likely to cause a breach
of the peace (Count 2).
|
|
1 count of
|
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to
Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 4).
|
Age: 40.
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
At approximately 1:00 pm on 10th
March, 2019, a male (“Male 1”) ran into Joe Jennings Bookmakers,
Cheapside, St Helier (“the Bookmakers”) closely followed by the defendant
who was shouting. A second male
(“Male 2”), who was holding a dog, followed closely behind.
CCTV footage shows Male 1 run to the
rear of the Bookmakers and through a door marked ‘Staff’, which he
closes behind him. The defendant
attempts to force the door open but is stopped by Male 1. The defendant walks back towards the
front of the premises whilst pointing and shouting at Male 1. A member of the public who was in the
shop at the time said: “I was so
scared about what was going on”.
The defendant approaches the counter
and slams both hands onto its surface whilst also shouting. He moves down the counter and pulls a
newspaper away and looks over it. A
money box containing notes and coins is in open view on the staff side of the
counter and in the defendant’s line of sight. He moves towards the rear of the
Bookmakers before returning to the counter, where he reaches over and puts two
handfuls of notes down the front of his trousers. The defendant stole a total of
£7,500.00 in cash.
At approximately 1:00 pm a member of
the public observed the defendant turning onto Kensington Street and heading
towards Kensington Place accompanied by Male 2 and two females. He observed a number of bank notes
in the street and one of the females attempted to pick the money up. The group left the area and he picked up
two £10 notes from the street floor which had been left by the group, and
later handed the money to the police.
At approximately 2:00 pm on 11th
March, 2019, the defendant was arrested whilst driving past police HQ in a
registered taxi. The defendant was
searched and officers found £470.00 in cash in his back trouser pocket,
two lumps of cannabis in his front trouser pockets and £19.70 was
recovered from his wallet.
The £40.00 which the defendant paid to the taxi driver was also
seized.
On the 12th March, 2019,
police officers recovered £500.00 from the premises of a female who said
she was holding the money for the defendant. The remaining money is still
outstanding.
The cannabis was analysed and found
to weigh 487 milligrams.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea.
Previous Convictions:
41 convictions spanning 228
offences, including convictions for 111 theft and kindred offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1:
|
2 ½ years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 1.
|
|
Count 4:
|
1 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 1.
|
Total: 2 years and 6 months
imprisonment.
Compensation Order sought in the
sum of £7,500 in favour of the Bookmakers, to be paid at a rate of £100.00
per week and payment to commence 6 months after release from the term of
imprisonment imposed.
Compensation Order sought, in the
sum of £50.00, in favour of the taxi driver.
Confiscation Order sought and a
declaration of benefit in the sum of £7,500.00. The realisable amount was identified as £1,049.17 and the Crown requested
a Confiscation Order made for the same.
In accordance with Article 3 (7)
of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 the Crown requested that the
amount realised under the Confiscation Order be paid towards the outstanding
Compensation Orders.
No Order for Costs sought.
Forfeiture and destruction of the
cannabis sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1:
|
18 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 2:
|
2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 1.
|
|
Count 4:
|
1 weeks’ imprisonment, concurrent to
Count 1.
|
|
Total:
|
18 months’ imprisonment.
|
The Court ordered
Compensation Orders and a Confiscation Order in accordance with the
Crown’s conclusions.
The Court ordered the
forfeiture and destruction of the cannabis.
M. Temple Q.C., Her Majesty’s Solicitor
General.
Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE Lieutenant Bailiff:
1.
The fact
that we have been out for such a long time is indicative of the anxious thought
which we have given to this matter.
2.
Andrew
Scott Page aged 40, on the 10th March this year, ran into a bookmaker’s
premises in pursuit of another male, who managed to get into the staff room and
close the door behind him. The
defendant tried unsuccessfully to open the door, all the while shouting and
behaving in an extremely aggressive manner. It is quite clear that people in the
shop were frightened. This was a
serious breach of the peace, and constitutes Count 2 of the Indictment.
3.
The
defendant noticed a box full of cash and started stuffing bank notes down the
front of his trousers. In all, and
he accepts this, he stole £7,500.
He then left the premises and was arrested the following day. That in essence is Count 1.
4.
The
arresting officers found two lumps of cannabis in the defendant’s front
trouser pockets. (Count 4 of the Indictment). They also found a total of £489.70
in cash in the defendant’s back trouser pocket and wallet. A further £40 was recovered from the
taxi driver, in whose vehicle the Defendant had been arrested.
5.
Two days
later, the officers recovered a further £500 from a friend of the
defendant who had concealed the money behind a skirting board in her home. A further £20 was also recovered,
the defendant having dropped two £10 notes in the street; a member of the
public dutifully returned those monies to the police. Of the £7,500 stolen only this
total of £1,049.70 has been recovered. The Crown treats this as an aggravating
feature and we accept that. The
Crown also points to the aggressive and frightening nature of the offence as an
additional aggravating feature, and with this we disagree. We accept defence counsel’s
submission that the defendant was angry anyway and did not affect an angry
demeanour for the purposes of facilitating the offence of larceny. In addition, we bear in mind that the
defendant has pleaded guilty to Count 2 (conduct likely to cause a breach of
the peace while in the betting shop).
6.
The Court
accepts that this was an opportunistic theft. It was not a planned robbery of a betting
shop; the defendant was not armed, and there were no threats to the staff in
the shop. Apart from those
observations the court can find no other mitigating factors in relation to the
circumstances of the offending.
7.
The
defendant has a very bad criminal record, aptly described in the full and
comprehensive Social Enquiry Report as “unenviable”.
8.
He has 41
convictions for 228 offences including 111 convictions for theft and kindred
offences. He is described in the
Social Enquiry Report as being as being at very high risk of reconviction. Paragraph 38 of the report references
his previous criminal record, drug use, homelessness, unemployment and peer
group, and to quote the paragraph 38 verbatim: “difficulty abiding by boundaries that may be imposed upon him”. The Jurats have taken due cognisance of those
words.
9.
As to
mitigation, the defendant did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity;
indeed at the initial interview he gave to the officers that what can only be
described as a cock and bull story, a story which indeed he later changed. But he did plead guilty on Indictment
and the Crown has, in our judgment correctly, allowed a full one third credit
in this regard. There can be,
however, no credit for youth or previous good character.
10. Advocate Harrison, in a thoughtful address to
us, has urged us to follow the recommendation of the Social Enquiry Report and to
impose an 18 months’ Probation Order coupled with a community service
order.
11. We listened very carefully to everything that Advocate
Harrison had to say. We
particularly take account of the tragic circumstances of this defendant’s
childhood and the huge difficulties that he has had to face. But we have reluctantly concluded that
probation probably would not work. In
the words of one of the Jurats, “probation
might set him up to fail”, and in the circumstances it would be
better if he were in prison and took advantage of whatever support is available
to him. There is some reluctance on
our part, but it has to be a custodial sentence.
12. We note also that Mr Page has a long history of
non-compliance with individualised sentences and he has frequently committed
offences while on bail.
13. As to the sentence the Crown has referred us to
Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing (3rd edition), where this is said:-
“The offence [that is the
offence of larceny] is so various in form and circumstances that it is not
susceptible to guideline treatment.
The cases mentioned in this section purport to be no more than instances
of the Court’s practice on specific occasions. Little of principle is to be derived
from them, save that the value of property stolen may be one key
consideration.”
14. With that we respectfully agree. The offence of larceny is protean, but we
do regard the amount of money stolen in this case as being important
consideration. This was on any view
a serious act of dishonesty.
15. For comparison purposes only the Crown has
drawn our attention to AG v Ring [2008] JRC190; AG v O’Shea
[2011] JRC136A and AG v Rousseau [2011] JRC195. That last case involved a theft at knife
point accompanied by threats, and we thus consider that it affords us little if
any guidance. Neither have we found
the three cases Egré, Esnouf and Stainforth passed
up to us by defence counsel this morning to afford any particular guidance.
16. The Crown has moved conclusions as follows:-
(i)
Count 1,
theft, 2½ years’ imprisonment;
(ii) Count 2 - breach of the peace – 2 months’
imprisonment, concurrent; and
(iii) Count 4 – possession of cannabis –
1 week’s imprisonment, concurrent.
17. Mr Page would you please stand. The court has decided to take into
account of the very difficult background and tragic circumstances of your life
and your appalling childhood experiences.
We do think that this has contributed in substantial manner to your
criminal record so far. We think
that a lot of this can be traced back to that.
18. The court wishes to give you something of a
chance, Mr Page, so we are going reduce the Crown’s conclusions.
19. Count 1, the sentence will be one of 18 months’
imprisonment.
20. Count 2, 2 months’ imprisonment
concurrent.
21. Count 4, 1 weeks imprisonment concurrent, that
making a total sentence of 18 months.
22. The Crown has requested a compensation order -
in fact, two compensation orders.
The Bookmaker has suffered a loss of £7,500. A request for a compensation order is
made for that money, to be paid at the rate of £100 a week and payment to
begin 6 months after release from the term of imprisonment we have imposed. We grant this order, noting that a realisable
amount will be immediately deducted from the sum of the compensation order.
23. The taxi driver suffered a loss of £50. The Crown has requested us to grant and
we do grant a compensation order in the sum of £50, and we hope that the realisable
amount will be applied to that.
24. In the event that you fail to pay the remaining
balance at the rate of £100 a week, we fix a default sentence of 3 months’
imprisonment, in accordance with Article 3(1)(c) and 3(3) of the Criminal
Justice Compensation Orders (Jersey) Law 1994.
25. As to confiscation, we make a declaration of
benefit in the sum of £7,500 under Article 3(3) of the Proceeds of
Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. We
make a confiscation order in respect of the monies recovered in the sum of
£1,049.70 under Article 3 of the same law.
26. Article 3(7) provides that where a confiscation
order and a compensation order are made and the defendant does not have the
means to satisfy those orders, the sum recovered under the confiscation order
shall be paid towards any amount that is not recoverable under a compensation
order.
27. We therefore order that the sum of
£1,049.70 is paid towards the sum of the compensation orders and in doing
so we express the hope that the taxi driver will be reimbursed in full and the
Bookmaker’s firm to the tune of nearly £1,000, very shortly.
28. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of
the two lumps of cannabis.
Authorities
Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978
Whelan, Aspects of Sentencing (3rd
ed.)
AG
v Ring [2008] JRC 190
AG
v O’Shea [2011] JRC 136A
AG
v Rousseau [2011] JRC195
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
Criminal Justice Compensation Orders
(Jersey) Law 1994