Jersey Unreported Judgments

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v de Sousa [2001] JRC 91 (27 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2001/2001_91.html
Cite as: [2001] JRC 91

[New search] [Help]

2001/91

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

27th April 2001

Before:

M.C. St. J. Birt, Deputy Bailiff, andJurats Rumfitt and Allo.

The Attorney General

-v-

Miguel Rodrigues de Sousa

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 25th January, 2001, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

1 count of:	Failing to comply with traffic sign, contrary to Article 36(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 1).
2 counts of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (counts 2, 8).
2 counts of:	Driving whilst uninsured, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (counts 3, 9).
1 count of:	Receiving, hiding, withholding stolen property (count 4).
1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (count 5).
2 counts of:	Obtaining money by false pretences (counts 6 and 7).
1 count of:	Taking and driving away without owner's consent, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 10).
1 count of:	Larceny (count 11).

Age: 18

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1-3: driving without a licence or insurance; Count 4: receiving two 'Motorola' walkie talkie radios; Count 5: defendant broke into Fotosound where he had previously been employed and stole £10,000 worth of goods; Counts 6-7: cashed stolen cheques valued at £175 and £317; Counts 8-11: Stole a car and used it without a licence or insurance and took number plates. The defendant committed a series of offences whilst on warning or on bail; denied committing offences when interviewed.

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant was naïve; break-in committed in company of others whom he refused to name; had spent 23 weeks in custody; he wanted to join the army.

Conclusions:

Although the defendant was a young offender, the Crown moved for a custodial sentence as he had previously breached an attendance centre order and a probation order. He had a history of failure to respond to non-custodial sentences and there was the seriousness of the breaking and entry offence.

Count 1:	£100 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment.
Count 2:	£300 fine or 7 days 'youth detention in default of payment, concurrent.
Count 3:	£300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	12 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 6:	2 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 7:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 8:	£300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment, concurrent.
Count 9:	4 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 10:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 11:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent.
TOTAL:	20 months' youth detention; £100 fine, or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	£100 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment.
Count 2:	£300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment, concurrent.
Count 3:	£300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment, concurrent; 12 months' disqualification from driving.
Count 4:	2 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	12 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 6:	2 months' youth detention, consecutive.
Count 7:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 8:	£300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment, concurrent.
Count 9:	2 months' youth detention, consecutive; 12 months disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 10:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent; 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 11:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent.
TOTAL:	18 months' youth detention; £1,000 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default of payment; 12 months' disqualification from driving.

Advocate S.E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P.M. Livingstone for the accused.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1. This is yet another case of crime carried out to get money to feed heroin addiction. De Sousa, you repeatedly offended whilst on bail. You have previously been given non-custodial sentences but these appear to have had no effect. You are only 18 but your failure to respond to these non-custodial sentences and the seriousness of these offences in the aggregate have satisfied us that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence in this case. A non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

2. We have taken into account the mitigation put forward by your counsel, in particular your guilty plea; your remorse, and we have read the letter which you have written to us as well as the reference supplied. We have also taken into account that this is your first experience of youth detention and in the circumstances we think we can reduce the conclusions slightly.

3. The sentence of the Court is as follows: on count 1: you are fined £100 or 7 days' youth detention in default; count 2: £300 or 7 days' youth detention in default, concurrent; count 3: £300 or 7 days' youth detention in default, concurrent; 12 months' disqualification from driving; count 4: 2 months' youth detention; count 5: 12 months' youth detention, consecutive; count 6: 2 months' youth detention, consecutive to count 5; count 7: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent; count 8: £300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default, concurrent; count 9: 2 months' youth detention, consecutive; 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent; count 10: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent; 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent; count 11: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent, making a total of 18 months' youth detention; £1,000 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default; 12 months' disqualification from driving.

4. De Sousa, I must warn you that, following your release from youth detention, you may be subject to supervision by the probation service.

5. Finally, Miss Fitz, we would refer to the fact that, in relation to the first group of offences, the defendant was charged on 30th April and as he is a young offender one would have thought that the matter would have been dealt with quickly, but it appears not to have been presented until 5th July. That seems to us too long a delay.

No Authorities