Jersey Unreported Judgments

2002/220

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th November, 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Dean Jones Ozard

[The Crown accepted not guilty pleas to Counts 1, 1B, 2, 2A, 4 and 4B].

Age:     20.

Plea:    Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1A - The first offence involved a break and entry at the Post Horn Public House after hours and the theft of over £5,000 from a safe in the cellar.  The exact extent of Ozard's involvement was unclear but he admitted taking part in the offence.

Count 2B - The second offence involved a break-in at the Warehouse staff quarters.  An individual broke into a female staff member's bedroom and was found, by her, climbing out of the window.  £100 was stolen and Ozard admitted receiving this sum.

Count 3 - In the third offence, Ozard entered a private area in the staff quarters of the Warehouse Public House and stole wallets and mobile telephones belonging to staff members.

Count 4A - The fourth offence took place at Bergerac Wine Cellar, £30 was stolen and Ozard had acted as the lookout.

The aggravating factors were that Ozard committed the first offence just three weeks after being released from a period of youth detention served for break and entries and other offences.  He was also on licence at the time of committing the present offences.  He denied any involvement in the offences when first interviewed or else tried to minimise his role when faced with conclusive evidence.  He had a very poor record of convictions.   

Details of Mitigation:

Ozard is only 20 years of age and was therefore subject to Article 42 of the Criminal Justice Young Offenders (Jersey) Law 1994.  Other than his youth, however, there was very little mitigation.      

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

1 year's Probation Order; 240 hours Community Service Order; to attend Alcohol and Drugs Service and SMART course; to remain opiate free and to submit to random urine tests.

The Court noted that Ozard had been released from Youth Detention on 15^th February 2002, and that the first of these offences was committed within three weeks thereafter.  He committed the offences to fund his heroin addiction.  He had an appalling record for one so young.  The Court stated that the Crown's conclusion of 2 years' Youth Detention was perfectly correct and understandable.  The Court had, however, read the reports which suggested Ozard had reached a turning point and was determined to conquer his addiction and turn away from crime.  The Court wished to give him an opportunity to see if this were correct.  The Court therefore proposed a 1 year probation order with attendance on the SMART course and a treatment order with the Alcohol and Drug Service, including random urine samples.  He was also to complete 240 hours' community service and was warned that he was very fortunate and if he were to breach the order he would serve 2 years' youth detention and that the time served on remand would not count. 

Advocate S.E. Fitz, Crown Advocate.

Advocate S.J. Young for the defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were released from youth detention on the 15^th February, yet you committed the first of these offences within 3 weeks.  We have no doubt they were committed to fund your heroin addiction.  You have an appalling record for one so young and we think that the Crown's conclusions that you should serve youth detention for a total of 2 years were perfectly correct and understandable.

2.        We have read the reports and they all suggest that perhaps this is a turning point for you, and that you really are motivated to try and conquer your heroin addiction and turn away from crime.  You are only 20 and we think that, faced with those reports, we should give you the opportunity to see whether that is true.

3.        We are going to place you on probation for 1 year with the condition that you attend a SMART course and you will be subject to a treatment order; that means you must attend the Drug and Alcohol Service as they direct.  You will be subject to random urine samples and you must remain free of all opiates and benzodiazepines.

4.        In addition because these were serious offences we are going to impose a Community Service Order of 240 hours and we state that, had we not imposed community service, we would have agreed with the Crown's conclusions of a total of 2 years' youth detention divided up as they said.

5.        You have been extremely fortunate.  It is now up to you.  If you breach the treatment order, or if you do not attend the SMART and the Drug and Alcohol courses as you are directed, if you commit any further offences, or if you do not do the community service, you will be brought back here, and in the light of your record and these offences there will then be no alternative but for you to go inside again for the sort of period suggested by the Crown. In those circumstances the time you served on remand would not count towards your sentence.

No Authorities