Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/192

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

29^th September, 2000

 

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

Jurats Myles and Potter.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Mark Romeril

 

 

1 count of:   obstructing a police officer in the due execution of his duty (count 7);

 

1 count of:   being drunk and disorderly (count 8).

 

[Counts 1-6 of the Indictment relate to two co-accused, who pleaded not guilty to some of the counts laid against them.  One co-accused was remanded on bail on 25^th August, 2000, to take his trial at a Criminal Assize on 8^th January, 2001, on those counts to which he pleaded not guilty, and thereafter to receive sentence on the counts to which he pleaded guilty.  The other co-accused was remanded on bail on 25^th August, 2000, to receive sentence on 12^th January, 2001, on the count to which he had pleaded guilty.  The Crown stayed proceedings until further order on the count to which he had pleaded not guilty].

 

Age:   18.

 

Plea:  Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:   Relatively minor interference with the arrest of two friends - WPC involved - no remorse - anti-police.

 

Details of Mitigation:   Youth, guilty plea.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions: Count 7: £500 fine or 14 days' imprisonment in default of payment.

                        Count 8: £100 fine or 7 days' imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

                        Count 7: £500 fine or 4 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment.

                        Count 8: £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.

                        TOTAL: £600 fine or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment.

 

 

N.M. Santos Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate A.P. Roscouet for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            This was a disgraceful incident.  The Social Enquiry Reports suggest that this defendant has a very unfortunate attitude towards the police which led him to obstruct them when they were arresting a friend of his for an alleged grave and criminal assault.  If the defendant persists in this sort of attitude he may find himself led into committing more serious offences which may ultimately lead to imprisonment.  We were pleased to note Miss Roscouet's assertion on behalf of the accused that he has reflected further on the matter and on his attitude and that he is now remorseful for his actions.

 

2.            The defendant is aged 18 and is a first offender.  We entirely agree that a financial penalty is the correct method of disposing of this case.  We have carefully considered the points Miss Roscouet made as to the level of the fine on the first count, but we are satisfied that - in view of what the defendant did and his present financial position - the fines are perfectly correct.

 

3.            Stand up, please, Romeril.  We order a fine of £500, or 4 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment on count 7; on count 8, you are fined £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment.  Those default sentences to be consecutive, making a total fine of £600 or 5 weeks' imprisonment in default of payment and we allow you 12 weeks in which to pay.

 

4.            We would add that we understand the difficulty that the Magistrate sometimes faces in deciding when to send a case up to the Royal Court where a defendant is charged along with a number of others and the part of one defendant is not so dissimilar to parts played by others.  In those circumstances it is quite right that all the cases are sent up so that this Court does not have its hands tied by any sentence passed in the Magistrate's Court.  However, there are cases where it is obvious that the sentence to be passed on one co-accused will have no impact on the sentence to be passed on those charged with the more serious offences because there is such a difference in what is alleged.  We have no doubt that this is such a case.  We cannot see that the sentence imposed on this defendant for the comparatively minor offences which he faces could conceivably have any influence on the sentences to be passed on the other co-accused who are charged with offences of grave and criminal assault.  We are therefore in no doubt that this case should not have been sent up by the Magistrate's Court.

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Waller (25^th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Brolly (20^th November, 1998) Jersey Unreported.

 

Falle -v- AG (19^th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported.

 

Waugh -v- AG (12^th September, 1994) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- Manson & MacKenzie (25^th February, 2000) Jersey Unreported.