ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
5 June 1998
Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff
and Jurats Le Ruez, Bullen
AG
-v-
Anthony Thomas Howard
1 count of breaking and entering and larceny (count 1)
1 count of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (count 3)
1 count of possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.
count 4: cannabis resin.
Plea: Guilty (plea entered on 17 April 1998)
( Howard failed to appear 22 April 1998, and the Court ordered his arrest without bail option. Counsel for Howard had no objection to co-accuseds being dealt with in his absence: See Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date.]
Age: 21
Details of Offence:
Howard, together with Sutcliffe and McCuaig, had broken and entered Victor Hugo Wines at sometime during the night of the 30/31 October 1997. A quantity of alcohol and cigarettes had been stolen to the total value of £1,620.42 . The alcohol was taken by Howard and McCuaig back to their flat where Sutcliffe assisted in sorting the stolen goods for onward sale. Howard resisted arresting officers by trying to get past them out of the flat but he was seized and forcibly restrained. He was detained until sober enough to be interviewed and upon being searched, 531 grams of cannabis resin was found on his person.
Details of Mitigation:
Very little: guilty plea
Previous Convictions:
Appalling criminal record including 21 convictions for theft and kindred offences between 1991 and 1996 in the UK. On 14 May 1996, he had been convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of four offences committed whilst on bail. He was detained and released on licence on 16 June 1997, shortly after which he arrived in Jersey. His offence in Jersey constituted a breach of his licence.
Conclusions:
Count 1: 15 months Youth Detention
Count 3: 2 months Youth Detention consecutive
Count 4: 2 weeks Youth Detention consecutive
Howard had pleaded guilty on indictment on 17 April 1998 to counts 1, 3, and 4. His 21st birthday fell on the 19 May 1998. He had absconded from Jersey when his co-accused were dealt with on 22 April 1998. Thus, at date of sentencing he was 21. The case of Martin -v- Attorney General, (14 January 1998) Jersey Unreported, at page 8 was relied upon, which holds that the material age of an offender for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 is the date of conviction, namely the date upon which a guilty plea was entered and accepted by the Crown. Therefore Howard was sentenced as a young offender notwithstanding the fact that he was over 21 at the date of sentence. The Crown moved that Articles 2(a) and (b) of the 1994 Law were satisfied and notwithstanding the fact that the two co-accused had received non custodial sentences.
Sentence and Observations
of the Court:
Count 1: 12 months Youth Detention
Count 3: 2 months Youth Detention
Count 4: 2 weeks Youth Detention
All concurrent
The Court said that Howard was fortunate to be dealt with under Article 4 but felt that breaking into shop premises at night was serious, the goods stolen were a significant amount and the Court had regard to the appalling record. Slight departure from the Crowns conclusions. Howard was warned that he would be under supervision upon being released. Drugs were forfeited and destroyed.
Mrs S Sharpe, Crown Advocate
Advocate JD Melia for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Because of your age at the time of conviction we are able to deal with you as a Young Offender, and we think perhaps you are fortunate in that regard.
We are guided by the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994, and I have to tell you that that law has a provision that a Court shall not pass a sentence of Youth Detention unless it considers that there is no other method of dealing with a young offender that is appropriate, because of a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and an inability or unwillingness to respond to them - and I think that applies in your case - or because only a custodial sentence is adequate to protect the public from serious harm, or because the offence or the totality of offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.
These crimes are certainly serious. Breaking into shop premises at night is a very serious offence, and stealing this large sum of money is a serious matter. We have also looked at your record which is absolutely appalling for a person of your age.
We dealt somewhat differently with one of your co-accused, who was perhaps as involved as you, however, the Court decided that it was possible to deal with him in that way. In your case, however, we feel that, because of your record, and because of the way that you absconded, we have to punish you with Youth Custody, but we are not going to follow the conclusions of the Crown but the suggestions of Miss Melia, who has said everything that she possibly can on your behalf. So you are sentenced, in the circumstances, to twelve months on the first Count; 2 months on the second Count; and to two weeks on the third Count, all concurrent so that you are sentenced to twelve months imprisonment in all. The time you have already served will be taken into account, and I have to tell you that you are liable to supervision when you come out of prison. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
A.G -v-Gaffney (5 June 1995) Jersey Unreported
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp.63-7
Ibid: Noter-Up (May 1995-1996): pp.25-26
A.G -v- McDonald (7 December 1990) Jersey Unreported
Martin -v- A.G. (14 January 1998) Jersey Unreported CofA