Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/193

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th October, 2000

 

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

Jurats de Veulle and Tibbo

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevin John Falle

 

 

1 count of:   breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.

 

Age:   27.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

Went out with intention of breaking and entering and stealing.  Saw open window of flat.  Entered and took items of limited value.  Disturbed by female occupant who returned home to find him in her room.  Approached her and said "I'm looking for a girl".  She was very frightened.  Committed at night; frightened the occupant; bad record, numerous previous break and entry.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Did not intend to harm her; low intellect; brought up in care; efforts to deal with drug problem.

 

Conclusions:   4 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:    3 years' imprisonment.

 

Very frightening incident.  Gave particular weight to the fact that he had made considerable efforts to deal with drug problem.  Extremely poor record.  One-off, not a spree.  Property taken not of great value.

 

 

Advocate S.E. Fitz, Crown Advocate;

Advocate D. Evans for the accused.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            We remind ourselves of what was said by Lord Bingham in the case of R -v- Brewster & Others (2^nd June, 1997) Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of England, which was cited in AG -v- da Silva (4^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported:

 

"The loss of material possessions is, however, only part (and often a minor part) of the reason why domestic burglary is a serious offence.  Most people, perfectly legitimately, attach importance to the privacy and security of their own homes.  That an intruder should break in or enter, for his own dishonest purposes, leaves the victim with a sense of violation and insecurity.  Even where the victim is unaware, at the time, that the burglar is in the house, it can be a frightening experience to learn that a burglary has taken place; and it is all the more frightening if the victim confronts or hears the burglar."

 

2.            This must indeed have been an upsetting and frightening incident for Miss Hatley and for Mr Butler.  We are not at all surprised that Miss Hatley continues to be affected by it.  We have to say that we have no sympathy whatsoever for the fact that Mr Falle suffered some injuries as a result of being detained by Mr Butler who had found Falle in the bedroom.

 

3.            The Courts have repeatedly made clear that breaking and entering occupied residential premises at night will be treated very seriously by the Courts and will attract heavier sentences than breaking and entering commercial premises.

 

4.            We take into account in mitigation the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty although he was caught redhanded.  We also accept that,  although the defendant went out to commit a burglary,  this particular one was an opportunistic one when he saw the window open.

 

5.            We give particular weight to the fact that this defendant has made considerable efforts recently to put his drug dependency behind him and that factor has influenced the decision which we have reached.  Having said that the defendant has an extremely poor record and has committed a number of breaking and entries previously.

 

6.            The Court has been referred to the case of AG -v- da Silva (4^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported when this Court adopted the general principles set out in the case of R -v- Edwards and Brandy (9^th May, 1996) Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of England.  In particular the Court adopted this passage:

 

"In the light of this sparse guidance, we cautiously think that burglary of an occupied dwelling house at night, even if mitigated by a plea of guilty, would not normally attract a sentence of less than three years' imprisonment and, if not so mitigated, the bracket would start at four years."

 

7.            Taking account of all the mitigation and in particular that this was but one offence of burglary,  not a spree as in some cases, and that no property of great value was taken we feel that we can reduce the conclusions slightly.  The sentence of the Court therefore is that you will go to prison for three years.

Authorities

 

 

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: May 1996-1997

               Noter Up: pp.25-29.

 

AG -v- Miller & Ors (25^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

AG -v- da Silva (4^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported.