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 >> AG v Munks [1999] UR 168A (8 October 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/168A.html
Cite as: [1999] UR 168A
[New search] [Help]
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
8 October 1999
Before: F C Hamon, Deputy Bailiff and
Jurats Myles and Le Breton
AG
v
Oliver Munks
FIRST INDICTMENT:
1 count of: grave and criminal assault ( count 31 );
2 counts of: receiving stolen property ( counts 32 & 33 );
3 counts of: possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:
Count 34: Psilocin
Count 35: Heroin
Count 36: Ecstasy
(The remaining counts on this Indictment relate to co-accused who were not before the Court.]
SECOND INDICTMENT:
1 count of: breaking, and entering and larceny (Count 1, with co-accused who will be sentenced at a later date).
1 count of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third-party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948. ( Count 2).
Age: 21
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
FIRST INDICTMENT:
- Kicks to victim’s head. Victim was fighting Munks’ brother. Minor injuries.
- Cigarettes value £1,982.30
- Computer value £1,600.
- Psilocin (Magic Mushrooms) personal amount
- Diamorphene (personal)
- Ecstasy (personal)
SECOND INDICTMENT:
- Broke glass door. Stole watches from Freedom Surf Shop - value £599
- Permitted friend to drive car uninsured
Details of Mitigation:
Good education, drugs use, guilty pleas, mostly co-operative, (did not name drug supplier). Youth, from good family
Previous Convictions: None
Conclusions:
FIRST INDICTMENT:
Count 31: 12 months imprisonment
Count 32: 15 months imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 33: 15 months imprisonment, concurrent
Count 34: 6 months imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 35: 6 months imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 36: 6 months imprisonment, concurrent.
SECOND INDICTMENT:
Count 1: 18 months imprisonment, consecutive to total sentence passed on first indictment.
Count 2: £200 fine/4 weeks imprisonment, consecutive, in default of payment; 12 month’s disqualification from driving.
TOTAL: 33 months imprisonment; £200 fine/4 weeks imprisonment in default of payment; 12 months disqualification from driving.
Sentence and observations of Court:
Conclusions granted, except that all custodial sentences - except for default sentence - to run concurrently.
TOTAL: 18 months imprisonment: £200 fine/4weeks imprisonment consecutive in default of payment;
12 months disqualification from driving.
T J Le Cocq, Crown Advocate
Advocate Mrs S A Pearmain for the accused
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: As we see it there are four factors in Munks’s favour. His comparative youth; he is now 21 years old - he was 20 when the offences were committed; the fact that his criminal record only shows one offence - driving without insurance - means that we can say he has no relevant previous convictions; his plea of guilty, and his, albeit limited, co-operation with the police.
Now, that is in all probability just as well, because the range of criminality is extensive. There are - as Crown Advocate Le Cocq has pointed out - five categories of crime - grave and criminal assault, receiving stolen property, possession of class A drugs, breaking and entering and larceny, and allowing someone to drive without insurance. And Crown Advocate Le Cocq, very helpfully in his address to us, has placed each of these offences in what I should call its legal context.
The break-in and larceny from the Freedom Surf Shop on 31 July occurred after Munks had pleaded guilty to the counts on the first indictment in this Court on 16 July. We have to say that we view that extremely seriously. He was, after all, in breach of a curfew imposed upon him.
As to the grave and criminal assault, we can agree with the Crown that this is not a Norris assault, nevertheless kicks to the head with a shod foot can kill as easily as can the application to a knife, and the fact that the complainant was not seriously injured is perhaps fortuitous.
On that point, as a matter of general importance, I think I need to cite the judgment that the Court of Appeal has just delivered on 29 September, in Gill v The Attorney General, [1999.160] Jersey Unreported CofA, because what the Court said at the end of its Judgment is this, and we would ask those who kick people in the head to take notice:
"Before leaving this case, we have these general observations. In cases of violence, whether of assault or robbery, or rape, or other forms of violence, it is necessary that the punishment ordered by the Court should have an element of deterrence. Not to deter the offender, because it is too late to do that, but:
- to deter others who may be tempted to engage in similar violence, and to remind them that if they do so they will similarly face long sentences of imprisonment, and:
- to show to the community as a whole that violence of this kind is not to be tolerated and will never be tolerated by the Courts of Jersey."
On the drug possession charges, Munks hadpsicolin in his possession, but he shows a pattern of poly drug use; there was also heroin and ecstasy. If there were no drug users there would be no drug dealers, and this Island would no doubt be a safer and more pleasant place in which to live. Nor can we share with Mrs Pearmain’s view that driving without insurance, or knowing and allowing others to drive without insurance, is not as serious an offence as the others.
We feel that the starting points that the Crown Advocate has taken are absolutely right, and in fact the conclusions are correct, but Mrs Pearmain has prevailed upon us to look again at this matter on a totality basis, and therefore we are going to amend slightly the conclusions of the Crown to the advantage of Munks.
Would you stand up please. On the first Indictment, on Count 31: grave and criminal assault, 12 month’s imprisonment. Count 32: receiving stolen property, 15 month’s imprisonment. Count 33: receiving stolen property, 15 month’s imprisonment. Count 34: possession of a class A controlled drug (psilocin): 6 month’s imprisonment. Count 35: possession of a class A controlled drug, (heroin): 6 month’s imprisonment, Count 36: possession of class A controlled drug (ecstasy): 6 month’s imprisonment. All those sentences to run concurrently, making 15 month’s imprisonment. On the Second Indictment: Count 1: (breaking and entering); 18 month’s imprisonment. Count 2: permitting use of a motor vehicle whilst uninsured; £200 fine or 4 weeks imprisonment consecutive in default of payment, and 12 month’s disqualification from driving.
We are going to vary the conclusions of the Crown Advocate, by making all those sentences concurrent, therefore in total you will not be serving 2 years and 9 months, you will be serving 18 months imprisonment, and what you have served already, of course, will be taken into account, but I have to say that the default sentence of four weeks imprisonment in default of payment of the fine will follow consecutively the other sentences; if necessary. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.
Authorities
A.G. -v- Knowles (26th June, 1998) Jersey Unreported. [1998.134]
A.G -v- Howell (5th June, 1998) Jersey Unreported.[1998.119]
A.G. -v- Norris (3rd June, 1992) Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Buesnel (1996) JLR265
A.G. -v- De La Haye and Kearney (15th December, 1995) Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Aubin (14th May, 1987 ) Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Gaffney (5th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Moore and McCaffrey (24th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported.
Gill -v- A.G. (29th September, 1999) Jersey Unreported CofA. [1999.160]