Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/191

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

6^th September 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Anthony Wylie.

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 6^th July, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

 

1 count of:	Larceny (count 1);
1 count of:	Receiving, hiding, or withholding stolen property (count 2).

 

Age:     38.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Details of Offence:

The accused entered a beauty salon in St. Helier whilst the front office was unattended, the staff attending to customers in the rear of the premises.  He went behind the counter and took a cash box containing £360.  Members of staff heard the disturbance and gave chase to the accused as he ran off with the cash box.  When he realised he was being chased he put the cash box down and made good his escape.  No actual cash was stolen because it was recovered in full by members of staff who gave chase.  Subsequently the accused was apprehended at Jersey airport as he was attempting to board a flight.  He was travelling under a false name.  The luggage he had checked in on his flight ticket was found to contain £43,000 worth of stolen jewellery.  It had been stolen from a St. Helier jewellers only a matter of days before his arrest.  The accused committed these offences within three months of having been given a one year's probation order by the Magistrate's Court for offences of dishonesty, including larceny and withholding goods.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown's conclusions were excessive.  The larceny of £350 was a pathetic crime; no force had been used; the premises were open and the guilty plea was of very real value to the prosecution because otherwise a trial would have depended on identification evidence which was notoriously difficult to prove.  As far as the receiving, hiding and withholding charge was concerned, the accused was merely acting as a "mule" with only £400 as payment.  He was funding a drug habit and repaying debts; that is why he took a disproportionately high risk for a relatively small reward. 

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous, stretching back many years, most for offences of dishonesty.

 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

TOTAL: 5 years, 3 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Although the Crown's conclusions were entirely justified, the Court was going to temper them with mercy by making the sentences concurrent rather than consecutive.  The accused was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for the charge of larceny and to 4 years' imprisonment for the receiving, hiding or withholding charge, both sentences to be served concurrently, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.

 

[The defendant was in breach of a 1 year probation order made on 30^th January 2001 in the Magistrate's Court, however, as the Defendant was not committed from the Magistrate's Court, the breach was not dealt with today.]

 

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

Advocate C.R.G. Deacon for the accused.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has a bad record for offences of dishonesty.  On 30^th January of this year he was placed on probation by the Magistrate's Court for 1 year, subject to various conditions, including a treatment condition for a number of offences including offences of dishonesty.  The offences on the indictment to which he has pleaded guilty were, therefore, committed during the currency of that probation order and, indeed, within weeks of its having been imposed.

2.        The first offence was, in the view of the Court, a mean and brazen attempt to steal from a shop and was only foiled by the courageous determination of the female members of staff to prevent him from getting away with his crime.  It is true, as submitted by defence counsel, that no violence was threatened, or offered.

3.        The second count represents a serious offence of dishonesty.  It is often said that if there were no receivers there would be much less theft.  The defendant was caught red-handed trying to leave the island with £43,000 worth of stolen jewellery. 

4.        We think that the conclusions moved for by the Crown Advocate on each individual count are absolutely right.  We have, however, given careful consideration to the totality principle as submitted by defence counsel.  Wylie, we have read your letter and, more importantly, we have read the letter from your partner that was passed to us.  We think that you are lucky to have the offer of her continued support, which frankly we doubt that you deserve.  You were offered help by the Alcohol and Drug Advisory Service when you were placed on probation by the Magistrate and you failed to take advantage of it. We hope, however, that the determination to reform your life, which you have expressed to the Probation Officer, is genuine.  In your partner and her family you have something of value which is worth trying to preserve.  We are, therefore, going to temper justice with mercy.  We are going to make the conclusions moved for by the Crown Advocate concurrent, not consecutive and the sentence of the Court, therefore, is that on count 1 you will be sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, on count 2 to 4 years' imprisonment, both sentences to run concurrently, making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.      

 

Authorities

AG-v-Graham & Anor (19^th August 1994) Jersey Unreported; [1994/168].

AG-v-Milne (26^th October 1992) Jersey Unreported; [1992/192].

AG-v-Page (17^th March 2000) Jersey Unreported; [2000/49].

Whelan; Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (1994) pp. 75-76.

AG-v-Trenear (30^th March 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/78].