Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Sutcliffe [2001] JRC 186 (24 August 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_186.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 186

[New search] [Help]

2001/186

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

24^th August 2001

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Rumfitt and Le Breton.

The Attorney General

-v-

Dominic Sutcliffe

1 count of:

Breaking and entry and larceny.

Age: 23

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Gained entry in the early hours of the morning to menswear shop by smashing a glass window pane. Stole items with retail value of £2,765. Apprehended whilst on the premises. Property recovered. Immediate cooperation with the police and early guilty plea.

Details of Mitigation:

Very little premeditation. Previous convictions were drink/drug related but has now accepted that he has a drink/drug problem and is seeking help. Youth.

Previous Convictions:

Numerous previous convictions including similar offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:

15 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

No alternative to prison in view of previous record and poor response to non-custodial sanctions.

A.R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate L. Kerruish for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. Sutcliffe, you broke into commercial premises at night and stole clothing to the value of some £2,700. Its not the first time you have done this because you have previous convictions for offences of a similar nature.

2. Miss Kerruish has urged that we should pass a non-custodial sentence. She has relied on your guilty plea and the fact that it was not pre-meditated. She has referred also to the value of the goods, the fact that you did no damage, other than break the glass and that the goods were recovered. In particular, she has also referred to the probation report, which says that, perhaps, at long last you are trying to deal with your drug problem and you have a girlfriend who is very supportive of that stance.

3. We have taken all this into account and we do indeed hope that you overcome your drug problem, but in view of your previous record and the poor response to previous opportunities you have had in relation to probation we see no alternative to prison. We think that the conclusions of the Crown make full allowance for all the mitigation available and we think that the conclusions are correct. The sentence is, therefore, one of 15 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Wilson (1989) 11 Cr. App. R (s).

AG-v-Dring (12th February 1992) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Gaffney (5th June 1995) Jersey Unreported.

AG-v-Newell (4th August 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/157].

AG-v-O'Brien (4th February 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/21A].