Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1999/24 - AG v McCabe [1999] UR 24 (5 February 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1999/24.html
Cite as: [1999] UR 24

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5 February 1999

Before: Sir Philip Bailhache Bailiff, and

Jurats Potter and Quérée

-v-

Steven Lee McCabe

Daniel Terry Lakeman

Steven Watts

(Prosecution against Steven Watts

abandoned on 15 January 1999)

Steven Lee McCABE

First Indictment

1 count of breaking and entering and larceny (count 1)

1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978:

count 2: cannabis resin.

Second Indictment

2 counts of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, contrary to Article 16(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956:

(counts 1,4).

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

(count 2); and

1 count of failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956:

(count 3).

Admitted breach of a 1 year Probation Order made in the Magistrates Court on 2 April 1997, following a guilty plea to 1 count of possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: (count 2); and following a guilty plea to 1 count of possessing utensils for the purposes of committing an offence, contrary to Article 8 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (count 3). (Count 1 was dismissed for lack of evidence).

Age:28

Plea:Guilty

Details of Offence:

First Indictment: Count 1: McCabe hired a car and with Daniel Terry Lakeman and two other friends drove to a property in St. Mary. When they discovered nobody was in they forced their way in through a door into an out-house attached to the main property and stole items to the value of approximately £1,040 including a chain saw, cross bow, replica flint lock pistol, two replica flasks and assorted power tools.

First Indictment: Count 2: When McCabe's property was searched with his consent two roach ends and three home made "bongs" were seized and subsequently discovered to contain traces of cannabis resin.

Second Indictment: Counts 1 - 3: At about 7.35 on 28 June 1998, McCabe was driving his Ford Fiesta J80380 along Journeaux Street and when turning into Aquila Road he failed to negotiate the turn and the vehicle struck a flower tub causing slight damage to the tub but tearing the wing off the car. He failed to stop and drove to Hampshire Gardens where he parked. The accident had been witnessed by a member of the public who contacted the Police. When McCabe spoke to the Police he was considered to be under the influence of drink or drugs and subsequent analysis of a urine sample revealed the presence of alcohol, cannabis and flurazepam. The Police Surgeon certified that in his opinion McCabe was unfit to drive.

Second Indictment: Count 4: When released from custody McCabe went and collected his car and then drove to Langley Avenue whilst still under the influence of drink or drugs.

Details of Mitigation:

McCabes background social enquiry and psychiatric reports show him to be a very sick man. No previous convictions for dishonesty. Court should exercise a degree of mercy and reflect this in the sentence, although McCabe accepted that a custodial sentence was almost inevitable.

Previous Convictions:

A number between 1991 and 1997 concerned primarily with the possession of cannabis and other drugs offences and a number of motoring offences.

Conclusions:

First Indictment:

Count 1: 9 months imprisonment

Count 2: 2 weeks imprisonment, concurrent

Second Indictment:

Count 1: 1 month imprisonment; 1 year disqualification from driving

Count 2: £100 fine or 1 week imprisonment in default of payment

Count 3: 2 weeks imprisonment

Count 4: 2 months imprisonment; 3 years disqualification from driving

(Sentences on Second Indictment to run concurrently with each other, but to follow consecutively those imposed on First Indictment). TOTAL: 11 months imprisonment; 3 years disqualification from driving.

Breach of Probation Order: No order sought

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

The Bailiff stated that the Court wished to say that breaking into a private dwelling house or outhouse is a serious offence which merits imprisonment. The Court had given anxious consideration to McCabes position and took note of his very bad record. It was not impressed to hear the account of his driving which could have caused death or serious injury. The Court had taken into full account the detailed background reports. After taking the reports into account the Court recognised that McCabe must be punished but would reduce the conclusions moved for, as follows:

First Indictment:

Count 1: 5 months imprisonment

Count 2: 2 weeks imprisonment, concurrent

Second Indictment:

Count 1: 1 month imprisonment; 1 year disqualification from driving

Count 2: £100 fine or 1 week imprisonment in default of payment

Count 3: 2 weeks imprisonment

Count 4: 1 month imprisonment; 3 years disqualification from driving

(Second Indictment sentences to run concurrently, but to follow consecutively those imposed on First Indictment).

TOTAL: 6 months imprisonment; 3 years disqualification from driving.

Breach of Probation Order: No order made.

Daniel Terry LAKEMAN

First Indictment:

1 count of Breaking and entering and larceny (count 1)

Age:25

Plea:Guilty

Details of Offence:

Together with Steven Lee McCabe broke into La Croix, St. Mary and stole property to a total value of approximately £1,040. (See details of offence above in relation to McCabe).

Details of Mitigation:

Had lived a chaotic life and lived at the Shelter. When he went with McCabe he had no inkling that a crime was to be committed and merely went for a drive because he was asked to do so. Due to the effect of alcohol and drugs he had no real recollection of matters. His role was a secondary one. It was really a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He accepted the seriousness of the offence, had offered full co-operation from the outset and had pleaded guilty. The offence was committed in the daylight and was a breaking into an outhouse rather than the dwelling house itself. His bad record was characterised by drug and alcohol abuse problems. Since the time of the offence a great deal of change in his life and he was determined to improve his position.

Previous Convictions:

Numerous since 1992 including possession of controlled drugs on three occasions, assaults and one each of larceny and breaking and entry and larceny.

Conclusions: 9 months imprisonment

Sentence and Observations of the Court: 9 weeks imprisonment (immediate release).

The Court had given anxious consideration as to how to sentence Lakeman and had considered very carefully the background reports and submissions made on his behalf. The Court recognised the tremendous efforts which Lakeman had made over the last nine to ten months and wished to encourage him. For that reason alone the sentence imposed would mean his immediate release from custody and the Court hoped he would take advantage of this.

JGP Wheeler Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate NF Journeaux for SL McCabe

Advocate JD Melia for DT Lakeman

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: The Court wishes to say, first of all, that breaking into a private dwelling house, in this case an outhouse attached to a private dwelling house, is, as the Crown Advocate has rightly said, a serious offence which merits the imposition of imprisonment.

Lakeman, the Court has given anxious consideration to how it should sentence you for the offence of breaking and entering. The Court has taken very much into account the reports which it has read and the submissions which have been made by your counsel, both of which have emphasised to us that over the past nine or ten months or so, you have made tremendous efforts to improve yourself and to live a more settled and less chaotic life. The Court wishes to encourage you to continue in that way and for that reason alone the Court is not going to send you back to prison but is going to impose a sentence for the offence to which you have pleaded guilty which will mean that you will not in fact suffer any further custodial sentence. The Court hopes that you will take advantage of this act of mercy on the part of the Court and that we shall not see you back again before the Court and that you will continue to live in the way in which you have done in the last nine months. We are going to sentence you, on count 1, to imprisonment for 9 weeks which will mean your immediate release.

McCabe, the Court has given equally anxious consideration on how to sentence you in relation to the offences to which you have pleaded guilty. You have, as you know, a very bad record and the Court was not at all impressed to hear the account of your driving in June which, but for the grace of God, could very well have caused a death or serious injury to somebody else. The Court is going to take account of the factors which have been set out in the background reports and the Court hopes that you will continue to try to obtain assistance from the medical authorities for the illness which is affecting you. But the Court must punish you for the offences which you have committed and is going to impose sentence as follows: on the first indictment you are sentenced on count 1 to 5 months imprisonment; on count 2, you are sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment, concurrent. On the second indictment you are sentenced on count 1 to 1 month imprisonment; on count 2, you are fined £100, or 1 week imprisonment in default of payment; on count 3, you are sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment; on count 4, you are sentenced to 1 month imprisonment. All those sentences on the second indictment to be concurrent with each other but consecutive to the first indictment therefore making a total of 6 months imprisonment. We are bound to disqualify you from holding a driving licence and in accordance with the law we hereby disqualify you for a period of 1 year on count 1 of the second indictment; and for 3 years on count 4 of the second indictment so that the total sentence is one of 6 months imprisonment and disqualification from holding a driving licence for a period of 3 years. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Whelan: "Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey": pp.63-69.

Whelan: Ibid Noter-Up May 1996 - May 1997: pp25-29

Thomas: Principles of Sentencing: pp291-294