Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/197

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21st September 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Dean Jones Antowine Ozard

 

2 counts of:	breaking and entering and larceny (counts 1 and 2);
1 count of:	malicious damage (count 3).

 

Breach of an 18 month Probation Order, made in the Magistrate's Court on 23rd May, 2001, following a guilty plea to two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime, one count of receiving, one count of larceny and one count of breaking and entering and committing a crime.  The Probation Order made on 23rd May followed an admitted breach of an earlier Probation Order, made in the Magistrate's Court on 16th October, 2000, on a guilty plea to two counts of causing a breach of the peace, one count of assault on police, one count of being disorderly on licensed premises and one count of obstruction/concealment of drugs under powers of search for drugs.

 

Age:     19.       

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach of Probation Order admitted.         

 

Details of Offence:

Count 1:  On 4^th June, 2001, during the daytime, Ozard broke into a flat over Spa Newsagents at Green Island and stole bank bags containing £4,400.62.  Ozard was chased from the scene by a member of staff, and the bags of money recovered, although the defendant was not apprehended.  Ozard denied the offence until confronted with the fact that his fingerprints had been discovered on the money bags.

Count 2:  In the early hours of Monday 11^th June, 2001, the police were called to Spa Newsagents at Green Island where Ozard was found hiding in the premises, having stolen cash to the value of £17.  Ozard admitted the offence in the subsequent interview.

Count 3:  Whilst in custody at Police Headquarters awaiting interview Ozard carved words into the paint of a cell door which required repainting.  

 

Details of Mitigation:

Ozard had endured a difficult family background with parents separating prior to his birth, and with the added trauma of his father's death in 2000 which resulted in Ozard's heroin abuse escalating.  The defendant has never served a lengthy period of being held in custody before and is in need of treatment for his attitude to alcohol and drugs as opposed to punishment by way of detention.  Ozard had written a letter of remorse to the Court.

 

Previous Convictions:

Numerous previous convictions for dishonesty and assault.  Probation Orders imposed since 1997 show a pattern of Orders being breached.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	12 months' youth detention;
Count 2:	12 months' youth detention;
Count 3:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.

 

Breach of Probation Order: 12 months' youth detention on each count, concurrent, and concurrent with sentences moved for on instant indictment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  Under Article 4(2) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 the Court concluded a period of youth detention to be the only appropriate way of dealing with the defendant, given both his history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and the overall totality of the offending.  The Court has been forced to impose a term of youth custody because the defendant has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted not to continue offending if at liberty.  The Crown also took into account that the defendant had spent 50 days in youth detention in respect of the original offences for which the probation orders were eventually imposed.  That period will not count when computing the time spent in youth custody.

 

 

Advocate B.H. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Ozard, you have been given numbers of chances to seek help in connection with your drug addiction but you have not taken them.  You have rejected offers of help from your Probation Officer, or, alternatively, you were only prepared to accept them on your own terms.  The only person who is responsible for the position in which you find yourself is you.

2.        You must have caused some fright to the woman who caught you in the flat at Green Island but that does not seem to have caused you any concern.

3.        We are going to grant the conclusions of the Crown Advocate and I have to explain to you why we are sentencing you to youth detention.  The reason is because you have shown a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties, i.e. Probation Orders, and you seem to be unable or unwilling to respond to them.  We also think that the totality of the offending which you have committed is so serious that we cannot justify imposing a non-custodial sentence.  We are sentencing you to youth custody because we have to punish you for those offences and because we cannot trust you at the moment not to go on offending and breaking the law.  I have also to explain to you that when you have served your sentence of youth detention you will be subject to a period of supervision by a Probation Officer or some other officer.

4.        We have noted that you have spent some time in custody prior to the imposition of the Probation Order on 23^rd May but we think that the Crown Advocate has made a proper allowance for that by moving for concurrent sentences on those offences.

5.        We have listened very carefully to what your counsel has said and we have also read your letter to the Court.  Some help, as you know, is available to you in the Prison and we hope that you will take advantage of that.  We also hope that when you come out of youth custody you will keep clear of drugs and of people who take them and that you will then make something of your life.  In the meantime we have to punish you and, as I have said, the conclusions are granted.  On count 1, you are sentenced to 12 months' youth detention; on count 2, to 12 months' youth detention; on count 3, to 1 month's youth detention.  All those sentences will be concurrent and on each of the offences for which you were placed on probation on 23^rd May, you will be sentenced to 12 months' youth detention; each of those sentences to be concurrent with each other and concurrent with the sentences on the indictment, therefore making a total of 12 months' youth detention.  We discharge the Probation Order.

Authorities

AG-v-Bendell (19^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/54].