Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/12

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

12^th January, 2001

 

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

Jurats Myles and Le Ruez

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Richard Bell

 

 

Sentencing by the Inferior Number, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Criminal Assize on 30^th November following his conviction, on a not guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:   possession or control of explosive material without lawful excuse, contrary to Article 4 of the Loi (1884) sur les matières explosives.

 

Age:    39.

 

Plea:   Not guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

16 petrol bombs were found on the premises where Bell was a resident and adjacent to a clubhouse frequented by islanders with a common backyard.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The delay (it had taken over a year for the case to come before the Court).

 

Previous Convictions:

 

1985 & 1994: causing malicious damage;

1995: driving with excess alcohol;

2000: being drunk and disorderly.

 

Conclusions:    18 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:    conclusions granted.

 

Mentioned shortcoming in the 1884 Loi, as 2 years' was the maximum sentence, regardless of gravity of offence.

 

 

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

Advocate A.D. Hoy for the Defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            It is horrifying to find a person in possession of petrol bombs in Jersey.  In this case the Crown alleges that you were in possession of 16 petrol bombs and we wish to make it clear that any person who possesses such weapons in Jersey can expect a prison sentence.

 

2.            Mr Hoy has put forward mitigation on your behalf, although one must begin by saying that the mitigation of a guilty plea is not available because you were found guilty by the jury.

 

3.            There has, however, been some delay in this case and we accept that it has been hanging over you for a considerable period.  We also note that you have been on bail since June having spent the equivalent of just over one year in custody on remand and that since being on bail you have re-built your life and are gainfully employed.  The Court has considered this very carefully and has not found it necessarily easy.  However, overall, the Court's view is that possession of petrol bombs is so serious that we cannot deal with it by way of a sentence of a year or so which would allow your immediate release because of the time already spent on remand.  Therefore we will impose the sentence moved for by the Crown of 18 months' imprisonment.

 

4.            We would like to raise a further matter, Mr Costa, which relates to the maximum sentence.  The maximum sentence is expressed, in the old 1884 Law, as being one of penal servitude for 14 years or imprisonment for 2 years.  The Criminal Justice (Jersey) Law, 1957 provides that penal servitude shall be replaced by imprisonment and the maximum sentence of imprisonment shall be the maximum term of penal servitude.  The result is that, as amended, the 1884 Law now provides that the maximum sentence is 14 years' imprisonment, or 2 years' imprisonment which, as you rightly point out, is nonsensical.  There must be a risk that the maximum is presently only one of two years as you suggest.  We strongly urge the Attorney General to draw this to the attention of the relevant committee with a recommendation that the sentencing legislation be tidied up and that a proper maximum be put into effect at the earliest opportunity to take account of the potential seriousness of the possession of explosives.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Le Flock (31^st January, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Marolia (28^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Le Maistre (2^nd May, 2000) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Langley (18^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

Loi (1884) sur les matières explosives.