Jersey Unreported Judgments

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/85 - AG v Gracia and Gracia [1998] UR 85 (24 April 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/85.html
Cite as: [1998] UR 85

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

---

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24 April 1998

 

Before: FC Hamon, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Le Ruez and Quérée

 

AG

-v-

Belinda Gracia

Neil Anthony Gracia

Belinda GRACIA

1 count of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. (count 1)

1 count of larceny (count 3)

Age:21

Plea:Guilty

Previous Convictions: None

Conclusions:

Count 1:9 months imprisonment

Count 3:1 month imprisonment, concurrent

Sentence:

Count 1:2 years probation; 240 hours community service

Count 3:£180 fine or 1 week imprisonment in default of payment

Neil Anthony GRACIA

1 count of conspiring to prevent the course of justice (count 1)

1 count of driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (count 2)

Breach of Binding Over Order made on 16 June 1997, for being disorderly on licensed premises.

Age:20

Plea:Guilty; breach of Binding Over Order admitted

Previous Convictions:

1 (disorderly on licensed premises: bound over 16 June 1997, vide supra)

Conclusions:

Count 1: 6 months Youth Detention.

Count 2:£250 fine; 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment, consecutive; licence endorsed.

Breach of Binding Over Order: £100 fine or three days Youth Detention in default of payment, consecutive

Sentence:

Count 1:2 years probation; 240 hours community service

Count 2:Conclusions granted

Breach of Binding Over Order: Conclusions granted

BOTH ACCUSED

Details of Offence:

Count 1.

A vehicle driven by Neil Gracia was stopped in a police check. Gracia was issued with a RT1 form, which required him within seven days to produce, inter alia, proof of the fact that he was insured to drive the vehicle in question. He was not insured to drive it. His sister Belinda Gracia was at that time a Woman Police Constable in the service of the States of Jersey Police. She agreed to assist him to exculpate himself. During her night shift she completed a form RT2 in her official capacity. This purported to show that her brother had produced satisfactory evidence that he had been insured to drive the vehicle. She forged her brother’s signature on the form and then signed it herself. The matter came to light when Neil Gracia was stopped again in connection with the facts forming the basis of Count 2.

Count 2.

Neil Gracia was driving in Elizabeth Place towards The Parade. He was seen by the Police Officers to turn left into The Parade. He suddenly changed lanes without warning, thereby forcing another motorist to take evasive action. He then turned in Gloucester Street, where he did exactly the same thing, nearly causing another accident. He was stopped by Police Officers on Victoria Avenue. It was their impression that he was exceeding the speed limit, but no reading was taken.

Count 3.

Belinda Gracia was employed for the evening as a babysitter. She introduced herself to the parents as an off-duty Police Officer. During the evening she stole a cashmere polo-necked sweater valued at £180. She later told the investigating Police Officers, "I saw the jumper and I liked it so I took it. That’s it".

Breach of Binding Over Order

Neil Gracia had been bound over on 16 June 1997, for being disorderly on licensed premises. There had been some violence in the incident and he had had to be handcuffed.

Details of Mitigation:

The conspiracy to pervert the course of justice had been committed out of a misguided sense of loyalty by Belinda Gracia. The defendants had entirely failed to appreciate the seriousness of what they were doing. The Social Enquiry Reports in respect of each of the defendants disclosed a very sad background of parental neglect and abuse. The psychological reports indicated distressed, depressed and anxious young people, to such an extent in the case of Neil Gracia that he recently attempted suicide. Youth. Good records. Loss of career in the case of Belinda Gracia. Neil Gracia in employment which he would lose if imprisoned. Strong recommendation in Social Enquiry Reports for an individualised approach. Defence counsel submissions based principally upon a plea for mercy.

Observations of the Court:

The Jurats were divided. One would impose a sentence of imprisonment, reducing the conclusions; the other would impose a non-custodial sentence. "With some hesitation" the Deputy Bailiff would cast his vote with the latter. The judgment was based almost entirely on the background of the defendants. In effect the Court acceded to the plea for mercy. It was considered that to adopt this course would serve the interests of society better than imprisoning these young people.

AJ Olsen, Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate RG Morris for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

In 1992, in the case of AG -v- Lenton, Fannon (10 July 1992) Jersey Unreported, the Court said this:

After citing a passage from Thomas: "Principles of Sentencing" the Court went on to say this:

We have to remember that at the time these offences were committed - when Belinda Gracia carried out a deception to show that her brother, Neil, was in fact insured to drive a motorcar when he was not so insured - she was a serving police officer. She forged her brothers signature and signed the form in her official capacity as WPC 644.

The other offences on the indictment would no doubt have been dealt with at the Magistrates Court had it not been for the seriousness of the first charge. Belinda Gracia stole a jumper worth £180 while she was being paid to babysit. She accepted the £15 payment and walked out with it. Her words to the police officers when she was questioned were: "I saw the jumper and I liked it so I tried it on and I took it. That’s it."

Neil Gracia, her brother, is also charged with dangerous driving. At least two cars narrowly avoided colliding with him because of his driving and that offence might have had serious consequences but we have to note that he is only charged with driving without due care and attention and not with dangerous driving. Gracia is also in breach of a binding over order because of that offence. His only previous conviction, from 16 June 1997, involved fighting outside a town nightclub and he was so aggressive that he had to be handcuffed.

Let us return to the first charge. Mr Morris began by saying in his cogent address that there were exceptional circumstances because of the background. The Court of Appeal in England in R -v- Okinikan [1993] 1 WLR 173 CA held that while there could be no definition of exceptional circumstances, matters such as good character, youth and an early plea of guilty could not constitute exceptional circumstances as they are common features in all criminal cases. But we are still not certain that the expression is limited to the circumstances of the offence as opposed to the offender.

Let us look at these two together. These siblings have never had any parental support. In fact, their father declined to be in Court today, although their mother is here.

We have before us - and we have spent some considerable time reading them - the carefully prepared probation and psychiatric reports. Indeed we now know that on 5 April 1998, Neil Gracia was admitted and detained overnight in hospital after taking an overdose of drugs. That is presumably either an attempt at suicide or a cry for help.

When these offences were committed Belinda Gracia was just 21 and Neil Gracia was 19. Their extremely unhappy family background has been given to us which meant that they were thrown together and their background was highlighted by both verbal and physical aggression. What Mr Berry, the Consultant Psychiatrist, said in his report about Belinda Gracia was this:

We found this case exceptionally difficult and it is clear to us - as it was clear to Mr Berry - that Miss Gracia was totally unsuited to police work.

The Jurats are not agreed. One would reduce the conclusions of the Crown to six months imprisonment for Belinda Gracia and three months Youth Detention for Neil Gracia. I would have to say that under Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 that would be fully justified on the seriousness of the offence alone.

The other Jurat would follow the very strong recommendations of the Probation and Psychiatric Reports and would impose on each of you two years probation with 140 hours community service. We have no difficulty on the other counts because none of us feel that the larceny of the jumper could possibly be so serious as to warrant imprisonment. We shall deal with Neil Gracia and the easy counts first. On count 2, you are fined £250 or 1 week Youth Detention in default of payment, and you shall have your licence endorsed. For the breach of the binding over order, you are fined £100 or 3 days Youth Detention in default of payment.

I now turn to Belinda Gracia. On count 3, you are fined £180, or 1 week imprisonment in default of payment.

I shall now deal with count 1. As we have said, Belinda Gracia should never have been a police officer as her whole background was unstable in the extreme. Attempting to pervert the course of justice is always a serious offence and would normally always be met with a period of imprisonment, but with the detailed reports and recommendations before me, I shall not - and I say this with some hesitation - side with the Jurat who would impose a custodial sentence. Using the words of Mr Morris, I think I will lean towards what I would prefer to call the side of mercy because I feel that society is best served by your receiving some help at this crucial stage of your life. On count 1, we are going to sentence each of you to 2 years probation, together with 140 hours community service to be completed within 12 months. I would like to say this to both of you: if you do not fulfil that probation service for 2 years and complete your community service adequately, you will come back to Court and we will have no hesitation in doing, perhaps, what we might have done in the first place.

 

Authorities

AG -v- Weston (1980) JJ 43

AG -v- Lenton, Fannon (10 July 1992) Jersey Unreported

AG -v- Evans (7 April 1995) Jersey Unreported

Current Sentencing Practice: B8-23C01: R -v- Gray (1989) 11 CrAppR(S) 23

R -v-Howell & Thomas (1990) 12 CrAppR(S) 130

R -v- Okinikan [1993] 1 WLR 173 CA