Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/205

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25th October, 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Mark Vincent Fortun

Age:     32.

Plea:    Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The offences were committed on separate occasions, both whilst Fortun was intoxicated.  The first incident occurred during the evening of Sunday, 7^th July, 2002, when Fortun was observed by a member of the public acting suspiciously by a "euro bin".  The bin was set fire to by Fortun and the Fire Service had to attend.  Fortun was arrested near the scene, was co-operative and readily admitted having set the fire.  He had no real explanation to offer other than the fact he was drunk and bored.  The second incident was more serious and again it occurred in the early hours of the morning following even heavier drinking by Fortun to the extent that he could not properly recall the events in question the next day.  He climbed over a wall to gain access to a storage area at the premises of Le Marquand Brothers Limited.  Stored there were examples of conservatories, glasshouses and sheds for members of the public to view.  Fortun had used the area previously as a form of refuge.  On this occasion, he spotted some petrol containers.  He used the petrol to set a fire and then went to the Shelter where he alerted a member of staff there to the fact that there was petrol in a nearby building which he thought could explode.  The member of staff was sufficiently concerned to call the Fire Service.  By the time the Fire Service attended the scene, there was a large fire in progress.  Total damage caused amounted to approximately £20,000 (the figure being agreed with defence counsel).  This fire occurred in a built up residential area in the early hours of the morning and the consequences could have proved fatal.  Again, Fortun was co-operative with the Police and admitted his involvement to the extent that he was able to recall it.

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operation with the Police and pleas of guilty.  In the case of the fire at Le Marquand Brothers' premises, he had done sufficient to alert the staff member at the Shelter who in turn called the fire Service which may have led to the fire being caught earlier than would otherwise have been the case.  The background and psychiatric reports contained a poor prognosis and offered no real alternative to that of imprisonment.  Fortun had declined the suggestion made by the Probation Officer to be assessed in respect of Asperger Syndrome.

Previous Convictions:

His record of prior convictions contained two previous offences of arson albeit some years before.  He had a number of other offences which were obviously drink related.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court endorsed the tariff of three to five years' imprisonment.  It doubted that it would have made a hospital order in this case even if the Court had the power to do so.  Credit was given for his co-operation, please of guilty and the fact that he had alerted the staff at the Shelter.  The Court noted that drink is at the root of Fortun's problems.  These offences were serious and the second could have had even more serious consequences than damaged property.  The Jurats were not agreed on sentence and consequently the conclusions were varied to the extent that the two sentences sought by the Crown would run concurrently.

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Arson, or maliciously setting fire to the property of another, is a troubling and serious offence.  It will usually have as its cause the troubled mind of the arsonist.  It is because the offence could be potentially lethal that the suggested tariff sentence is between 3 and 5 years' imprisonment.  With higher sentences appropriate for aggravated cases. 

2.        We have in the past criticised the fact that we are unable to make a hospital order directly.  But in any event careful reading of the Probation and Psychiatric Reports leaves us in doubt that treatment in that form is possible in this case.  After reading the Reports we are no further into understanding what motivates Fortun; for this is not his first case before this Court for arson.

3.        The fire at Le Marquand's was in the early hours; petrol was used, and whilst fortunately no one's life was endangered, some £20,000 worth of damage was caused. 

4.        Drink is clearly one of the causes of the problem.  When you are able to avoid drink you seem able to avoid trouble, as your counsel has so clearly stated.  As I have said, setting light to a property, in town, at night, using petrol, is very serious, because one has no idea what the consequences will be. 

5.        In your favour, it must be said, you went to the Shelter to give them some sort of warning.  You pleaded guilty, you have been co-operative and we accept that you may well have had a real memory loss.  The learned Jurats are not agreed.  One would follow the conclusions of the Crown, the other would move for a slightly more lenient sentence.  In the circumstances, you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment on count 1 and to 3 years on count 2; but because of the disagreement, I shall make those sentences concurrent; and the time you have spent on remand will, of course, be deducted from the sentence.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Drew (1985-86) JLR N.19.

A.G.- v- Coutanche (1989) JLR N.11.

A.G.-v- Skinner (1995) JLR N.21.

A.G.-v- Haslam (25^th May, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/122].