Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/102

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

11th May, 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Nicholas Michael Alderson.

 

Breach of  a 2 year Probation Order, with condition of attendance at SMART course and alcohol study group  made by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on 26th October, 1999, following guilty pleas to:

 

First Indictment

1 count of:	breaking and entry and malicious damage (count 1);
2 counts of:	being drunk and disorderly (counts 3,6);
2 counts of:	violently resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (counts 4,7);
1 count of:	malicious damage (count 5).

 

Second Indictment

1 count of:	being drunk and disorderly (count 1);
1 count of:	consuming intoxicating liquor on licensed premises, being a person under the age of 18, contrary to Article 13(2) of the Licensing (Jersey) Law, 1974 (count 2).

 

[The accused appeared on 26th October, 1999, with 2 co-accused.]

 

Age:     19

 

Details of Offence:

The Crown had sought a total sentence of 7 months' Youth Detention.  However, the Royal Court placed Alderson on probation for 2 years, with certain conditions.  Alderson appeared before the Royal Court on 1st September 2000 (see Jersey Unreported Judgment 2000/171 for Breach of the Probation Order).  He had committed further offences on three separate occasions.  There was a strong recommendation from the Probation Department that the Probation Order should continue.  The Royal Court advised Alderson that he was being dealt with leniently and that any further Breaches, or further offences, would almost certainly result in a custodial sentence.

In March 2001, Alderson committed a further 5 offences, including driving with excess alcohol in his breath.  Whilst on bail from the Magistrate's Court for these offences he committed a further offence of drunk and disorderly.  The Crown contended that Alderson had failed to curb his alcohol consumption and his criminal behaviour, despite the opportunities provided to him.  The Crown submitted that a custodial sentence should now be imposed.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Alderson was still a young offender who was an alcoholic.  His alcohol consumption affected his judgment which was the immature judgment of a 19 year old.  Counsel accepted that one could not argue against the Crown's conclusions, but as an act of mercy it requested the Court to consider imposing a Community Service Order with the condition that he be excluded from licensed premises, which would hopefully enable him to address his alcohol problem. 

 

Previous Convictions:

Several previous appearances before the courts for offences including motoring offences, assault and public order offence, offences of dishonesty including breaking and entry.  

 

Conclusions:

 

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' Youth Detention.
Count 3:	3 month's Youth Detention.
Count 4:	3 month's Youth Detention.
Count 5:	3 months' Youth Detention.
Count 6:	3 months' Youth Detention.
Count 7:	3 months' Youth Detention.

 

Second Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' Youth Detention.
Count 2:	3 month's Youth Detention, all concurrent

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Alderson, on 26th October 1999, had been placed on probation for two years, for a number of offences.  It was hoped that this order would enable Alderson to address his drink problems, but in September 2000 Alderson came before the Court for three breaches.  Normally Court would have expected him to have been sentenced to Youth Custody.  However, the Probation Department made a strong recommendation for the continuation of the Probation Order, but the Court stated that any further offences and he could expect  to get Youth Custody.  Despite that second chance, Alderson is once again before the Court.  He pleaded guilty to a number of drink related offences, including an offence committed whilst on bail.  He has ignored all of the chances given to him.  Drink  is his problem and the Court strongly recommended that he control his alcohol consumption if he was to avoid further offences.  He was still only 19 and therefore Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1984 applied.  The Court was quite satisfied that his repeated failure to comply with non custodial orders left the Court with no alternative to a custodial sentence.

The original conclusions sought by the Crown were 7 months' Youth Detention.  The Court took account of the 6 months he has spent on remand, but Probation Orders are to be complied with. 

 

 

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' Youth Detention.
Count 2:	1 month's Youth Detention.
Count 4:	1 month's Youth Detention.
Count 5:	2 months' Youth Detention.
Count 6:	1 month's Youth Detention.
Count 7:	1 month's Youth Detention.

 

Second Indictment

Count 1:	2 months' Youth Detention.
Count 2:	1 month's Youth Detention, all concurrent

 

TOTAL: 3 months Youth Detention.

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Alderson, on 26th October, 1999, you were placed on probation for two years for a number of offences in which drink played a part and it was hoped that during that period of probation you would address your drink problem.  But, in September of last year you came before us again.  You had breached your probation order on three separate occasions, which would normally have led to you being sent to a period of Youth Detention, but the Probation Service made a strong case for your being allowed to remain under probation in view of your good progress and the Court went along with that. But, it was said at the time that you were being dealt with leniently and that if you committed any further offences, you could expect to go to prison. 

2.        Despite that second chance you are now before us again, having pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court to a number of offences, all of them drink related and one of them, the case of being drunk and disorderly, committed whilst you were on bail for the other offences.  You have simply ignored all the chances you have been given.

3.        Its quite clear that drink is your problem and you are going to continue to offend unless you address that problem and we strongly recommend that you contact the Drug and Alcohol Service in order to try and get their help.

4.        We know you are still only 19. Article 4 of the Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law, 1994 applies, but we are quite satisfied that in view of your repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, there is no alternative now to a custodial sentence .  The original conclusions were for 7 months Youth Detention.  We take account of the fact that you spent the equivalent of approximately 6 months on remand, but nevertheless, we feel that the penalty today must be such as to bring home to you the fact that probation orders are to be complied with. So, we are going to sentence you as follows, reverting to the two indictments, for which you were dealt with in October 1999; Count 1: 3 months' Youth Detention, Count 3: 1 months' Youth Detention, Count 3: 1 months' Youth Detention, Count 4: 1 months' Youth Detention,  Count 5: 2 months' Youth Detention, Count 6: 1 months' Youth Detention, Count seven: 1 months' Youth Detention, making a total of 3 months.  On the second indictment; Count 1: 2 months' Youth Detention, Count 2: 1 months' Youth Detention, making a total of 2 months on that indictment. They will be served concurrently with that on the first indictment, in other words, a total of 3 months' Youth Detention.  We discharge your Probation Order and I must warn you that you may be subject to a period of supervision when you are released.

 

No Authorities