Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/49

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

22^nd February, 2001

 

Before:  M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and

                                                Jurats Quérée and Le Breton

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Matthew Richard Bendell

 

 

1 count of:   breaking and entry with intent to commit a crime (count 1);

5 counts of:  breaking and entry and larceny (counts 2, 13, 17, 21, 34);

8 counts of:  taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, contrary to Article 28(1) of the

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (counts 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 22, 27, 31);

8 counts of:  driving without a licence, contrary to Article 3 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended

                    (counts 4, 7,10, 15, 19, 23, 29, 32);

8 counts of:  using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the

                    Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948, as amended (counts 5, 8, 11, 16, 20, 24, 30, 33);

2 counts of:  larceny (counts 12, 28);

1 count of:   driving without due care and attention, contrary to Article 15(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956,

                    as amended (count 25);

1 count of:   attempting breaking and entry with intent to commit a crime (count 26);

1 count of:   violently resisting the police, in the execution of their duty (count 35);

1 count of:   possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply to another, contrary to Article 6(2) of the

                    Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: (count 36: cannabis resin).

 

Age:     20.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offences:

 

Over a three week period between 16^th September and 11^th October, 2000, Bendell attempted to break and enter a private dwelling with intent to commit a crime, broke and entered a private dwelling with intent to commit a crime, broke into five dwellings and stole goods to the approximate value of £500 together with cash amounting to approximately £100.  Using three sets of car keys he had stolen from three of the private dwellings he had broken into, Bendell took and drove away three vehicles without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority and drove whilst uninsured and without a licence.  Two of the vehicles taken were damaged, one was considered to be an insurance write-off after Bendell had been driving too quickly and had collided with a wooden post at La Braye car park.  The rear windscreen of the other vehicle was smashed and the rear bumper damaged.  Bendell also took and drove away a further four vehicles which were parked in public car parks or on private property without the owners' consent and on five occasions drove the vehicles without being the holder of a driving licence or having the requisite third party insurance.  When Bendell was arrested on 11^th October at the scene of a break-in he violently resisted a police officer (no injury was caused to the officer) and was found to be in possession of 2.26 grams of cannabis resin, a personal quantity but which was charged as possession with intent to supply on the basis of Bendell's admissions that he had found the cannabis and intended to sell it in order to obtain funds.  Three of the offences of breaking and entering and larceny occurred during the day when the occupant of the house was not present (counts 1, 3 and 34); one offence occurred during the day when the occupant was present (count 2); and two offences occurred at night when the occupants of the houses were asleep (counts 17 and 21).  No instance of confrontation with any of the occupants, indeed Bendell ran away when he saw one of the occupants.  The value of material possessions stolen was relatively small, and some of the property had been recovered.  None of the property stolen was of sentimental value.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

Bendell's guilty plea; he had been exceptionally co-operative with the police; he had written his own indictment in relation to certain counts; his youth; and he had shown remorse.  The accused's meritorious conduct which was wholly unrelated to the offences for which he is due to be sentenced.  (Bendell gave evidence in relation to an assault which took place at the prison in which Monet was found guilty by a jury of grave and criminal assault and attempting to pervert the course of justice (see A.G. -v- Monet (5^th January, 2001) Jersey Unreported)).

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Numerous previous convictions for breaking and entering and being carried in a motor vehicle taken without the owner's consent (see Jersey Unreported Judgments dated 17^th July, 1998, 18^th December, 1998, 19^th March, 1999 and 27^th July, 2000).

 

Conclusions:    3 years' probation with 120 hours' community service.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

 

Count 1:     2 years' youth detention.

Count 2:     2 years' youth detention.

Count 3:     3 months' youth detention.

Count 4:     £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 5:     3 months' youth detention.

Count 6:     3 months' youth detention.

Count 7:     £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 8:     3 months' youth detention.

Count 9:     3 months' youth detention.

Count 10:   £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 11:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 12:   2 weeks' youth detention.

Count 13:   2 years' youth detention.

Count 14:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 15:   £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 16:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 17:   2 years' youth detention.

Count 18:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 19:   £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 20:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 21:   2 years' youth detention.

Count 22:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 23:   £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 24:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 25:   £200 fine or 1 week's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 26:   2 years' youth detention.

Count 27:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 28:   2 weeks' youth detention.

Count 29:   £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 30:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 31:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 32:   £100 fine or 1 month's youth detention in default of payment.

Count 33:   3 months' youth detention.

Count 34:   2 years' youth detention.

Count 35:   2 weeks' youth detention.

Count 36:   2 weeks' youth detention, all concurrent.

TOTAL:    2 years' youth detention.

 

Offences so serious, Bendell's failure to abide by terms of previous probation orders imposed by Court and the need to protect the public led Court to conclude that it was not able to impose non-custodial sentence.

 

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

 

1.            The defendant has an appalling record for one so young.  He was released from youth detention on 27^th July, 2000, and yet committed all these offences in September and October.

 

2.            Miss Deacon has urged that he be given one last chance.  Although he has been on probation before on more than one occasion it is said that he has never been free long enough for such an order to have any effect in that he has usually offended within a week or 10 days of such an order being imposed.  Nevertheless on this occasion the Crown has been persuaded to move for a non-custodial sentence in the form of a probation order.

 

3.            The matters relied upon in support of that course are the guilty plea; the fact that the defendant wrote his own indictment on many of the charges and showed a high level of co-operation when interviewed by the police.  He has expressed remorse through a letter written to the Court which we have read.  He has a very troubled background and it is clear that he tends to offend when he does not have support.  A probation order would, it is said, give him that support.

 

4.            Furthermore, and most significantly, the defendant gave evidence in the Assize trial concerning the prosecution of a Mr. Monet for grave and criminal assault.  The defendant's evidence helped the jury to convict in that matter and the Crown Advocate in question has written to commend the way in which the defendant gave his evidence.  He is entitled to substantial credit for that.

 

5.            Nevertheless the Court has to have regard to the need to protect the public.  Breaking and entering is a serious offence and causes much distress to those whose homes are broken into.  We are not optimistic that the defendant would respond to a probation order, not only because he has such a poor record of compliance with previous orders, but because we note that at paragraph 13 of the social enquiry report it was stated that at the completion of his supervision on 5^th September he had shown a marked improvement in his attitude and whole demeanour yet it was only a few days later, on 16^th September, that he started the spree of present offences.

 

6.            We have considered Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 but we have concluded that, in view of the defendant's failure to respond to previous non-custodial sentences and in view of the seriousness of these offences, we cannot proceed other than by way of a custodial sentence.  However the mitigation to which we have referred enables us to reduce the sentence which would otherwise have been passed and we attach particular importance to the evidence which the defendant gave in the Criminal Assize.

 

7.            Stand up, please, Bendell.  The total sentence passed by the Court is one of 2 years' youth detention made up as follows: 2 years on counts 1, 2, 13, 17, 21, 26 and 34; 3 months on counts 3, 6, 9, 14,  18, 22, 27 and 31; £100 fine or 1 month on counts 4, 7, 10, 15, 19, 23, 29 and 32; 3 months on counts 5, 8, 11, 16, 20, 24, 30 and 33; 2 weeks on counts 12 and 28; £200 fine or 1 week on count 25; 2 weeks on count 35; 2 weeks on count 36; all of those sentences to be concurrent, making a total of 2 years' youth detention and you may be subject to supervision when you are released.  We should add this, Bendell: we note your expressed intention to turn over a new leaf and to break away from the conduct of the past.  We hope you will maintain that wish because otherwise, when you are released and if you re-offend you will simply find yourself serving longer and longer sentences, so the future lies in your hands.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

 

 

A.G. -v- Bendell (19^th March, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- da Silva (4^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported; (1997) JLR N.14.