Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/143

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th July 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Ryan Francis John Matson

 

 

3 counts of:	breaking and entry and larceny (counts 1, 3, 5);
1 count of:	possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: count 2: cannabis;
1 count of:	malicious damage (count 4);
1 count of:	larceny (count 6);
1 count of:	breaking and entry with intent (count 7).

Breach of a binding over order, made by the Youth Appeal Court on 11^th January, 2001.

 

Age:     19

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach of binding over order admitted.       

 

Details of Offence:

The accused committed separate offences over a nine month period.  The first offence of breaking and entry and larceny involved the premises known as "Pound World" in Queen Street.  The accused broke into the premises through a side door and stole £12,500 in cash.  The cash was never recovered.  Investigation revealed the near certainty that the accused had an accomplice with him.  The accomplice was never apprehended. 

The three other offences of breaking and entry with larceny/intent were all committed by breaking into Fort Regent.  These three incidents occurred on separate occasions and were not connected.  On the first occasion the accused entered Fort Regent and did various amounts of damage to parts of the premises.  In particular he damaged a shutter to a bar and a window.  He knocked through several doors.  He damaged the locks on a brief case/he damaged the display cabinet of a sports club/he broke windows in the Gloucester Hall.  Whilst in a cafeteria area he smashed a tropical fish tank, thereby killing the fish inside it and flooding two video recorders nearby which were unusable as a consequence.  He stole £100 in loose change from the cafeteria.

On the second occasion that he entered Fort Regent he extensively damaged the nursery school by breaking the kitchen door window, smashing the office door window and knocking out its frame, forcing open a filing cabinet and removing £68 in cash therefrom.  He also found other cash in the office in the approximate sum of £50 and a tin containing £170 in cash.  In total from the nursery he stole approximately £275.

The third occasion that he broke into Fort Regent he did not commit any actual crime but he did so with intent to commit a crime.  It was probably lack of opportunity to steal anything rather than anything else. 

As far as the possession of cannabis was concerned the accused was apprehended by police for behaving suspiciously in town and when he turned out his pockets cannabis was found.  It was a small amount and he accepted that it was his.

On a separate occasion he was caught shoplifting three CD's and a video tape from the HMV music shop in King Street, with a total value of approximately £35.

The Crown submitted that the aggravating factors were that the crimes, spread as they were over a protracted period, were antisocial and showed the accused as a determined and persistent offender.  The crimes concerning breaking and entry were apparently carefully planned.  In particular the breaking and entry and larceny from Pound World was a very serious matter: it involved quite a substantial amount of money (£12,500) which was never recovered.  The accused was throughout all of these enquiries unco-operative and only admitted guilt late in the day when he was faced with incontrovertible forensic and other scientific evidence linking him to the scenes of the crime - DNA sampling of blood stains and saliva on cigarette buts, together with forensic science on shoes prints etc, were required before the accused would admit his part in the crime.  The accused also had an unfortunate criminal record showing that he was, even at the age of nineteen, an accomplished criminal and non custodial sentences had been attempted without success in the past.  He had shown no remorse.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The accused clearly had some kind of psychiatric/psychological disorder.  The psychiatric report revealed conduct indicative of a form of psychosis but the psychiatrist was unable to conclude definitely that the accused was psychotic.  There was the possibility that the accused was feigning psychotic conduct in order to give the impression that he was mentally ill.  Nevertheless the accused clearly had some form of social problems which led him to commit the crimes, although it was not clear precisely what the problems were and what category of diagnosis they fell into.  He had pleaded guilty to the offences and was entitled to some credit and of course he was a young offender and therefore subject to the provisions of the Young Offenders Law.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous for similar types of offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	18 months' youth detention;
Count 2:	3 months' youth detention;
Count 3:	12 months' youth detention;
Count 4:	9 months' youth detention;
Count 5:	12 months' youth detention;
Count 6:	1 month's youth detention;
Count 7:	12 months' youth detention, all concurrent.

Binding over order to be discharged.

Since each offence was committed at a different time from each other, the correct sentencing approach would be for each sentence to run consecutively.  If that approach were adopted the overall sentence would have offended the totality principle.  For that reason the Crown moved for each sentence to be served concurrently so that the total sentence moved for would be eighteen months' youth detention.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  The accused was squandering his youth with constant and serious crime and the Court had no alternative other than imprison him.  The conclusions of the Crown were fully justified.

 

M. St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M.H.D. Taylor for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Matson, stand up, please.  You have pleaded guilty to offences, a number of which are serious.  They were all committed whilst you were subject to a probation order imposed by this Court some six months ago when you were given an opportunity to make something of your life.  You have squandered that opportunity and a custodial penalty is inevitable.

2.        The Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 requires me to explain why the Court is going to impose a custodial sentence.  The reasons are that you have a history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties and that the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial penalty cannot be justified.  I also have to explain to you that on your release you will be liable to be supervised by a probation officer or some other official.

3.        We have taken into account in your favour your guilty pleas and the other mitigating factors mentioned by the Crown Advocate, but we think that all those have been taken into account in the conclusions.  The conclusions are granted and, on count 1, you are sentenced to 18 months' youth detention; on count 2, to 3 months' youth detention; on count 3, to 12 months' youth detention; on count 4, to 9 months' youth detention; on count 5, to 12 months' youth detention; on count 6, to 1 month's youth detention; on count 7, to 12 months' youth detention, all those sentences to be served concurrently.  We discharge the binding over order.  We decline to make a compensation order and we order, in case it is necessary, the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

 Authorities.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994

AG-v-Rios & Others (11^th October 1996) Jersey Unreported

AG-v-Pinto & Others (6^th September 1996) Jersey Unreported

AG-v-McDonough Another (25^th October 1991) Jersey Unreported

AG-v-Dowden & Jersey Others (6^th August 1992)  Jersey Unreported

AG-v-Bendell (19^th March 1999) Jersey Unreported [1999/154]

AG-v-McCormick (16^th March 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001/64]

AG-v-Wakeling & Another (23^rd April 1990) Jersey Unreported

AG-v-Gaffeny (5^th June 1995) Jersey Unreported