Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/112 - AG v Hamon [1999] UR 112 (18 June 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/112.html
Cite as: [1999] UR 112
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
18 June 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Rumfitt and Georgelin.
AG
v
Ashley Anaise Hamon
Breach of a 2 year Probation Order, with 180 hours Community Service made by the Royal Court on 22 May 1998 [1998.104] following guilty pleas to:
1St Indictment: 14 counts of obtaining property by false pretences (counts 1 - 14).
2nd Indictment: 1 count of assault (count 1);
2 counts of being disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 83 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 (counts 2,3);
1 count of grave and criminal assault (count 4).
Age:
Plea:Breach admitted.
Details of Offence:
Details of Mitigation:
Previous Convictions:
Conclusions: Probation order be discharged. On original indictment, following sentences be substituted:
1st Indictment: Count 1 - 14: 9 months imprisonment, concurrent, on each count.
2nd Indictment: Count 1: 1 month imprisonment;
Count 2: 2 weeks imprisonment;
Count 3: 1 weeks imprisonment;
Count 4: 9 months imprisonment.
All concurrent.
TOTAL: 9 months imprisonment.
Sentence & Observations of Court:
1st Indictment: Counts 1 - 14: 6 months imprisonment on each count.
2nd Indictment: Count 1: 1 months imprisonment;
Count 2: 1 weeks imprisonment;
Count 3: 1 weeks imprisonment;
Count 4: 6 months imprisonment.
All concurrent.
TOTAL: 6 months imprisonment.
P Matthews, Crown Advocate
Advocate C G P Lakeman for the Accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: I am sure that Mr Lakeman will agree with me, this is as sad a case as one can imagine.
On the breach of Probation the Court is concerned because originally it followed the Social Enquiry Report. That report made a most eloquent argument on Miss Hamon’s behalf and she had given the deepest assurances that she would do everything in her power to comply with a Probation Order. The conclusion of that report reads as follows:
" Miss Hamon has indicated her willingness to comply with such a sentence and she is aware of the inevitable consequences inherent in any future return to Court should she fail."
The Crown Advocate Mr Binnington at the time put it even more strongly, he said:
"She should be in no doubt that if the Crown’s conclusions are granted by this Court and she fails to co-operate with the Probation Service, or re-offends, she will find herself facing a substantial custodial sentence."
Now it is quite clear from reading all these reports, which we have done with some care, that every effort has been made on her behalf and we have to remind ourselves that Mr Berry on June 10 of this year finished his report by saying that there are no indications of any current serious psychological disturbance.
We have thought about this at great length. There is no realistic alternative to imprisonment. However, we are still minded to look at this matter perhaps more leniently than we might normally have done. So, stand up please Hamon. We are going to sentence you on counts 1 - 14, 6 months imprisonment; count 1, 1 month imprisonment; count 2 and 3, 1 week imprisonment; count 4, 6 months imprisonment and all those counts concurrent, and we are going to discharge the Probation Order. Mr Lakeman, thank you very much indeed.
No Authorities