Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/184

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

15^th September, 2000

 

 

Before:  M.C. St.J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

Jurats Le Brocq and Allo

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Christopher Egan

and

Declan John O'Neill

 

 

1 count of breaking and entering and larceny.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Age:

 

Egan:      21.

O'Neill: 22.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Defendants had arrived in Jersey from the ferry under false names and using a day return ticket.  They were stopped by Customs officers who noted that they had considerably more luggage than would be expected including sleeping bags.  However they were allowed to continue on their way.  Defendants found employment as kitchen porters at local hotels.  After an evenings drinking, in the early hours of the morning they located a large breeze block which they hurled several times at the window in 'Mappin and Webb' having previously established that the window contained watches of high worth.  Two members of the public observed the defendants' actions and immediately called the police.  Defendants helped themselves to watches which they placed in plastic carrier bags and ran off up Queen Street into La Motte Street, hiding in a garage.  They were arrested almost immediately.  The watches were recovered but all were damaged to some degree.  Those which were contaminated with blood were unfit for resale.  Egan was reasonably co-operative.  O'Neill was initially aggressive but ultimately co-operative.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Both had poor social backgrounds.  Egan had encouraged O'Neill to tell the truth.  O'Neill had made frank admissions.  Defence counsel instructed there was no real premeditation and offence had been committed under the influence of alcohol although Crown took the view it was a focused and determined effort to break the window and steal the watches.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Egan had 32 convictions comprising 113 offences, 63 of which were theft and kindred offences.

O'Neill had 20 convictions involving 35 offences, 21 of which were for theft.

 

Both defendants had committed offences whilst on bail.

 

Conclusions:

 

Egan:        2 years' imprisonment

O'Neill:   2 years' imprisonment..

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Egan:        1 year 9 months' imprisonment.

O'Neill:   1 year 9 months' imprisonment.

 

Crown's conclusions a little high.  Court did not think that offences of this nature could be put into rigid guidelines.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for P.C. Egan.

Advocate A.J.D. Winchester for D.J. O'Neill.

 

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            Both these defendants have appalling records for dishonesty despite their comparative youth.  Within some eight days of arriving in the island they committed a smash and grab at a jeweller's shop in Queen Street and made off with watches with a retail value of over £16,000.

 

2.            Luckily, due to the quick action of two members of the public, who immediately telephoned the police, they were quickly apprehended and we would like to congratulate those two members of the public for their action.

 

3.            We take into account that both defendants have pleaded guilty, although it has to be said they did not have much choice, having been caught at the time.  We also accept their assertion that the offence was spontaneous and that they had been drinking that evening, although drink as the Court has often said is no excuse.

 

4.            In relation to Egan, we have read carefully the references and letters which show that there is another side to him.  We also take into account the fact that he was co-operative right from the start, whereas O'Neill was obstructive at the beginning, although he was co-operative by the time of the formal interview.  As against that we have to say that Egan's record is even worse than O'Neill's and we feel that these two factors broadly balance each other out.  We take into account their youth; although they are not young offenders, they are both still young men.

 

5.            We have considered the other cases to which we have been referred.  Both defence counsel have sought to say that, by reference to other offences, the Crown's conclusions are too high.  We do not think that offences of this nature can be put into rigid guidelines.  Each case must be judged on its own facts.

 

6.            However, having regard to the available mitigation we are prepared to reduce the conclusions slightly and each of the defendants is sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

 

 

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp.63-64; May'94-5 Noter Up: pp.27-8; May'96-7 Noter Up: pp.25-31.

 

AG -v- Gaffney (5^th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Newell (4^th August, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Ford (31^st March, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG-v-McDonough, Dring (25^th October, 1991) Jersey Unreported.