Jersey Unreported Judgments

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18 June 1998

Before: FC Hamon Esq., Deputy Bailiff and Jurats

Myles, Gruchy, Le Ruez, Herbert, Rumfitt, Potter, de Veulle, Quérée,

Le Brocq, Tibbo and Le Breton

AG

-v-

Jonathan David Whiteley

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1 May 1998, following a guilty plea to:

2 counts of forgery (counts 1,3)

2 counts of uttering a forged document (counts 2,4)

1 count of robbery (count 5)

Age: 34

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

Defendant altered two prescriptions from his general practitioner by increasing the number of Dihydrocodeine tablets referred to in the prescriptions and then presented these to two separate pharmacists.(Counts 1 to 4). This was unsuccessful and neither pharmacy supplied the tablets. Defendant then went home, took a 14 in. kitchen knife and returned to one of the pharmacies. He drew his knife, pushed a female assistant out of the way and went into the dispensary where he waved the knife around and then held it some six inches away from the pharmacists stomach. He demanded and was given a tub containing approximately 400 Dihydrocodeine tablets before running away and throwing the knife in a dustbin.

Details of Mitigation:

All the offences, including the robbery, were very inept. He was known to the pharmacies and was therefore bound to be caught. He had no intention of using the weapon and intended it only to frighten the staff for the purposes of obtaining the drugs. When interviewed he made immediate admissions and gave a full account of what had occurred. He displayed considerable remorse for what he had done and had pleaded guilty at all times. In addition a report was produced from the Drug and Alcohol Service making it clear that he had not been properly treated by that service at the relevant time. If he had been treated differently and his dependence on Dihydrocodeine reduced the offence might not have occurred. 

Previous Convictions:

Several including two previous for assault for which very short periods of imprisonment had been imposed and some dishonesty.

Conclusions:

Count 1: 6 months imprisonment

Count 2: 6 months imprisonment, concurrent

Count 3: 6 months imprisonment, concurrent

Count 4: 6 months imprisonment, concurrent

Count 5: 4 years imprisonment, consecutive

Sentence and Observations

of the Court:

Conclusions granted

Robbery with weapons could not be tolerated. The Court noted the cases quoted by the Attorney General which suggested that the English Courts took a stricter approach to such offences and approved the dicta of Lord Lane suggesting the need for deterrence in such cases. The Court accepted that there were mitigating factors but felt the conclusions were correct.

AG

Advocate CGP Lakeman for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: Dihydrocodeine is a drug used to control addiction. One might have had some sympathy with an addict who altered his prescription to obtain more of the drug but it does seem extraordinary that Whiteley altered his prescription on three separate occasions. What it is not possible for this Court to sympathise with is the attempt - following those thwarted attempts to obtain the drugs illegally by altering the prescriptions - to rob a chemist at knife point. As the learned Attorney General has said to us this afternoon to hold a fourteen inch knife inches away from a Chemists stomach whilst threatening him verbally is an experience which must have been extraordinarily frightening. We have seen the knife, it is a large chef’s knife and without a doubt it is intimidating in any context. Robbery in daylight with a weapon such as this is not conduct that this Court will tolerate.

Looking at the offender, Whiteley is 34 years old, he has a record which -although it includes an offence of committing a grave and criminal offence upon a female person in 1989 for which he received four weeks imprisonment - is not exceptional and we say that in the context of his being an admitted drug addict.

The learned Attorney has taken us very carefully through the English authorities and later the Jersey authorities which are very much in point. I think it might be useful if we were to cite from the judgment of Lord Lane, CJ, in the Attorney General’s Reference No.2 of 1989 (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (s) 481 at p 485, where the learned Lord Chief Justice said this:

In fact the Courts in England tend to refer to condign punishment with regard to offences of robbery in this nature.

The recent Jersey cases which we have looked at are perhaps not as severe in their conclusions as they are in England but, according to the learned Attorney, the range that we have to look at is between eighteen months and five and a half years.

Now, with Whiteley we have remorse; a bungled attempt; his co-operation; the fact that no actual harm was done - although the chemist was clearly not to know that at the time; and of course the plea of guilty. However, we believe that sufficient allowance has been made from a starting point which we feel must be in the region of five and a half years to reduce it on the main count to four years. Therefore, we are going to follow the conclusions of the learned Attorney.

Although Mr Lakeman has said everything he possibly could say on behalf of his client, we are going to follow the conclusions of the learned Attorney. Whiteley, please stand up. You are sentenced to: 6 months’ on counts 1,2,3 and 4, concurrent; and to 4 year’s consecutive on count 5.

Authorities

Attorney Generals References Nos: 3,4,8,9,10,11, and 16 of 1990 (1991) 92Cr App. R.(S) 166

Attorney Generals Reference No.7 of 1992 (1993) 14 Cr. App. R (S) 122

Attorney Generals Reference No.2 of 1989 (1989) 11 Cr. App R (S) 481 @ 485

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing of the Superior Court of Jersey: pp 74 - 75

Attorney General -v- McFarlane (11 December 1989) Jersey Unreported

Attorney General -v- Ingham (9 February 1996) Jersey Unreported

Attorney General -v- Morello & Ors (2^nd May, 1996) Jersey Unreported

Blackstone: Criminal Practice: p.262

R -v- Bernard (1991) 1 Cr App.R. (S) 135