ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
18 May 1999
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache Bailiff and
Jurats Quérée and Le Breton
Magistrate’s Court Appeal
Steven Watts -v- AG
Appeal against conviction and a sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment passed on 8 April 1999, following a not guilty plea to:
1 count of larceny by finding.
Appeals dismissed.
A J Belhomme Esq Crown Advocate
The Appellant on his own behalf
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: This is an appeal by Steven Watts against his conviction and sentence on a single charge of larceny by finding of an electric guitar valued at £110. The facts, as they appear from the evidence given in the Magistrate’s Court, are that the electric guitar in question was stolen from a music shop in St. Helier on 17th December, 1998. The instrument was snatched by a male while the shopkeeper was serving two customers.
On 17th January, 1999, acting on information received, Police Officers went to the appellant’s home and asked him whether he had any knowledge of this guitar. The appellant assured the police that he did not have any electric guitar on the premises as he played only acoustic guitars. A search was conducted and the stolen electric guitar was found under a mattress in the bedroom. It was shown to the appellant who gave no explanation as to why it was there. He was arrested and taken to police headquarters where he was interviewed under caution. The appellant told the police that he had found the guitar on his doorstep on Christmas Eve in a bin-liner. He had thought it was a Christmas present although there was no note on it to indicate who might have given the guitar to him. He admitted that he had made no inquiries as to the place from where the guitar might have come nor as to its owner. He had not reported the matter to the police. He had taken the guitar into his house and had put it under the mattress. He had told the police that it was not in his possession because he was frightened and he did not want to say that he had the guitar.
The Assistant Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 6 weeks’ imprisonment.
The appellant appeals against his conviction on two grounds. First, he asserts that he asked for the disclosure of prosecution documents and that they were not given to him. The Crown Advocate told us that he had made inquiries of the police support unit and it appears that no formal request was made for the prosecution papers. The transcript shows that whereas the appellant did complain in the Magistrate’s Court that he had not received the statements, that was only after he had been convicted.
The appellant is not a stranger to legal processes and indeed he admitted having an appalling record of previous convictions. He could have asked for an adjournment or even asked for the statements at the beginning of the hearing, but he failed to do so.
We have nevertheless asked ourselves whether the appellant might have been prejudiced in any way by the absence of disclosure. Our conclusion is that he could not have suffered any possible prejudice. This was a very straightforward case where the evidence was absolutely clear and indeed not contested in any material respect by the defence. We find therefore no force in this ground of appeal.
Secondly, the appellant asserts that he did not know that the guitar was stolen. The appellant was charged with larceny by finding. It was the duty of the Magistrate to decide whether the appellant had acted dishonestly by appropriating the guitar and keeping it in the circumstances which we have described. It is not for this Court to substitute its own view of the evidence which was given in the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate heard and saw the witnesses both for the prosecution and for the defence and was in a better position than this Court to reach a conclusion on the facts. We cannot find that the Assistant Magistrate arrived at a conclusion at which he could not reasonably have arrived on the evidence before him. We therefore find no force in the second ground of appeal and the appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed.
The appellant has also appealed against sentence. The appellant told us that he was uncertain as to why he had been sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment. We have examined the record of previous convictions which includes a conviction for larceny by finding and as we have already said the appellant has conceded that he has an appalling record. In our judgment the sentence of 6 weeks’ imprisonment imposed by the Assistant Magistrate was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The appellant has expressed the intention to move on and indicated to us that he intends to reform himself. We hope that that is indeed the case but in the meantime he must be punished for the offence of which he has been convicted. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Authorities
AG -v- Rawnsley-Gurd (16th May, 1994) Jersey Unreported.
Niblett: Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings: Chapter 4: pp.32-42.
Corker: Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings: paras. 1-01 to 05; 7-01 to 7-12.
Archbold (1999 Ed’n): paras. 12-124 to 128.