Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/250

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

17^th December 2001

Gary Michael McKenna

-v-

The Attorney General

Magistrate's Court Appeal

On 4^th May, 1999,    the appellant pleaded guilty to 1 count of being drunk in charge, 1 count of obtaining goods by false pretences, and to miscellaneous minor motoring offences and was placed on probation for 1 year, with 50 hours community service, and 23 months' disqualification from driving.

On 19^th November, 1999,    the appellant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of driving whilst disqualified and to 2 counts of driving uninsured and was placed on probation for 1 year, with 60 hours' community service; no penalty for breach of earlier probation order was imposed.  6 months' disqualification from driving, consecutive to existing disqualification imposed.

On 1^st November, 2001,     the appellant pleaded guilty to 1 count of being disorderly on licensed premises, 1 count of receiving, 1 count of assaulting the police, 1 count of driving whilst disqualified and 1 count of driving uninsured and was sentenced to a total of 16 weeks' imprisonment.  For the failure to complete the 50 hours' community service order, made on 4^th May, 1999, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 4 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive, for the failure to complete the 60 hours' community service order, made on 19^th November, 1999, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 6 weeks' imprisonment, consecutive.

                                       TOTAL SENTENCE:    26 weeks' imprisonment.

Appeal against sentence imposed on 01 November, 2001, dismissed.

The Appellant on his own behalf.

Advocate C. Yates on behalf of the Attorney General.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Gary Michael McKenna appeals against a sentence of 26 weeks' imprisonment imposed by the Assistant Magistrate on 1^st November, 2001, for a variety of offences.  The ground of appeal set out in the notice is severity of sentence but the Court can interfere with a sentence imposed in the Magistrate's Court only if it is wrong in principle, or manifestly excessive.

2.        The history of the offending goes back to 4^th May, 1999, when the appellant was ordered to perform 50 hours' community service for an offence of obtaining goods by false pretences; for driving with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit and other minor offences.  The alcohol concentration was high being two and a half times over the prescribed limit.  None of that community service was ever performed and the appellant appeared before the Magistrate's Court again on 19^th November, 1999, for offences of driving whilst disqualified and driving without third party insurance.  For those offences he was ordered to perform 60 hours' community service, consecutive to the order of 4^th May, 1999, which was reimposed.  Again none of that community service was performed and the appellant left the jurisdiction, apparently only returning towards the end of the year 2000.

3.        He then committed further offences of being disorderly on licensed premises, receiving a handbag and its contents and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty.  He was charged and granted bail, notwithstanding his repeated failures to comply with the orders of the Court.

4.        In March, 2001, he again absconded and his arrest was ordered.  It was not until September, 2001, that he returned to the Island to 'face the music'.

5.        The learned Assistant Magistrate obtained a social enquiry report and analysed very carefully in his judgment the various elements of the offending and the mitigation which was available to the appellant.

6.        The appellant has told us that he is very remorseful for the offences which he has committed and that he has "grown up" as he put it over the past 12 months.  The Court hopes that the appellant has, indeed, matured sufficiently to avoid the spate of offending which has marked his earlier years.  We have to consider, however, whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was manifestly excessive.  Clearly it was not and the appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

No Authorities