2001/7
YOUTH APPEAL COURT
11th January 2001
Before: |
M.C. St. J. Birt, Deputy Bailiff, P. J. Morgan, Esq., Mrs L. Falle, Mrs J.M. Clapham |
M
-v-
The Attorney General
Appeal against a sentence of 6 months' youth detention passed by the Youth Court on 4th October, 2000.
On 14th July, 1999, the appellant was bound over for 1 year by the Youth Court following guilty pleas to 1 count of consuming/purchasing intoxicating liquor on licensed premises aged under 18, and 1 count of resisting police
On 1st December, 1999, the appellant was bound over for 6 months on guilty plea to 1 count of assaulting police. Breach of binding over order of 14th July, 1999, was admitted and was to continue without further penalty.
On 16th February, 2000, the appellant was placed on probation for 1 year, with 40 hours' community service on guilty plea to 1 count of larceny. Breach of binding over orders of 14th July and 1st December, 1999, admitted and to continue without further penalty.
On 21st June, 2000, the appellant was placed on probation for 1 year with attendance at SMART course on guilty pleas to 1 count of receiving, 1 count of malicious damage, 1 count of larceny, and 3 counts of breaking and entering and committing crime. Breach of probation order of 16th February admitted, and to continue with 10 additional hours of community service. Breach of binding over orders of 14th July and 1st December, 1999, admitted and to continue, without further penalty
Appeal allowed; custodial sentence quashed; probation order of 21st June, 2000, re-imposed and extended to 31st December, 2001, with attendance at SMART course and drugs and alcohol service.
Advocate Mrs. S.A. Pearmain for the Appellant.
Advocate C Yates on behalf of the Attorney General.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. An appeal is brought against a sentence imposed on 4th October of a total of 6 months' youth detention. The background is that on 21st June, 2000, the appellant appeared before the Youth Court on a total of 6 charges. On that occasion the appellant was placed on probation subject to a condition that he attend the SMART course.
2. He failed to comply with the terms of that probation order in that he failed to attend the various meetings required with the probation service and accordingly he was brought back before the Court on 4th October, 2000.
3. The appellant has an appalling record for one so young and it is no surprise to us that the Youth Court felt that it had no alternative but to impose a sentence of youth detention and we find nothing to criticise in the sentence itself, nor in the length of six months.
4. There were, however, a number of technical defects in the sentence which we should mention. First, Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 requires a court which is sending a young offender to youth detention to inform him that he may be subject to a period of supervision on his release. The Assistant Magistrate failed to do that on this occasion and therefore there was that technical deficiency; it is important that that be done.
5. Secondly, the Assistant Magistrate simply announced an aggregate sentence of 6 months' youth detention. He did not make it clear what sentence was being imposed for the particular offences. It is incumbent upon a court to specify the sentence for each offence even if it is only to state that it is 6 months concurrent on all charges if that be the case.
6. Thirdly, it appears that there may not have been any rehearsal in public of the facts of the six offences for which the appellant was being sentenced. One has to recall that in dealing with a breach of probation a court is in fact sentencing for the original offences. Therefore the court must be informed of enough about the facts of those offences for it to assess the correct sentence. It is no good just having a charge sheet which says that there was malicious damage or a breaking and entering or whatever. It may be that the Youth Court had before it a police report, although it appears that Mrs Pearmain may not have had this and that in itself would be extremely undesirable: a Court should not sentence on the basis of information not available to defence counsel. The correct course is for the Centenier to present enough of the facts of the case, taken, no doubt, from the police report, so that the court can then assess the correct sentence for the particular circumstances.
7. We come now to events since 4th October. Not long after that date and whilst in youth detention the appellant began to display worrying symptoms. As a result psychiatric assistance was sought. He was referred to the psychiatric unit. He went back to prison on one occasion and then returned again but, to summarise, on 8th November, the Youth Court granted him bail pending appeal on condition that he was committed into the care of the psychiatric service. That remained the position until 13th December when the psychiatric service released the appellant into the community and to his home. He has remained in the community at large since then. It is important that, as far as is known, he has behaved responsibly since then and has not committed any further offences.
8. He has therefore served the equivalent of one month and 24 days in youth detention and, as Mrs Pearmain points out, he also served approximately two months whilst on remand for the offences prior to 21st June.
9. We repeat that no criticism can be made of the original sentence but we have to consider the matter in the light of the changed circumstances, namely the information from the psychiatric service, the events since then and the fact that the appellant has now been back in the community for one month. To send him back to youth detention at this stage for the balance of his sentence seems to us not to be the most productive course. Accordingly, and not without considerable hesitation, we are prepared to allow this appeal and to substitute a probation order.
10. Stand up, please. We are going to allow your probation order to continue but we are going to extend it to 31st December. We are going to impose a condition that you attend the SMART course and we are also going to remind you specifically that you must do exactly as directed by the probation service and we note that they are going to ask you to do what is set out in the report. We understand that you have been taken through this by your counsel and you realise what is involved. It is a very tough programme. We also make it a condition that you attend the drug and alcohol service as directed by the probation service.
11. This is your last chance. You have been very lucky and we are not at all surprised that the Youth Court sent you to youth detention. If you re-offend or if you do not comply with what the probation service tells you, you will be back before this Court and there will be nothing we can do then other than to send you to youth detention. It is all in your hands and let us hope we do not see you again.
12. Mrs Pearmain shall have her legal aid costs.
No Authorities