Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2002/52

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

1^st March, 2002

The Attorney General

-v-

Jamie Anthony Nash

Plea:    Guilty

Conclusions:

3 years' imprisonment

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

P. Matthews Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M.I. Guillaume for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

COMMISSIONER HAMON:

1.        When we look at this matter objectively Nash was invited to come to Jersey, apparently to meet four other men, to open an unlocked cabinet in a jeweller's shop and participate in the stealing of 26 watches valued at £54,567.  He was to be paid £1,500 for his day trip.  Nash has now accepted that he stole 26 watches and not the 10 that he had previously suggested to the police.

2.        We know that he travelled to Jersey with four other men; we know that he used a false name; we know that he came with the others on one way tickets and that there was a one way ticket to return to Birmingham on the same day.

3.        Four men, who, apparently, were not the four men with whom he came to Jersey, were at the jeweller's shop and appeared to be acting in concert.  Had it not been for the alertness of a passer-by the operation would no doubt have been more successful than it was.  We have two explanations, one given to the Probation Officer and one to the police.  Both seem to us to be implausible but the Crown accepts the version given to the police by Nash.

4.        Nash was questioned at the Airport with two other men in the evening of the same day but nothing came of that.  However, there was a formal video identification by the person who had, to a certain extent, thwarted the operation, when cctv cameras showed Nash boarding the aircraft earlier at Birmingham.  His fingerprint was found inside the jeweller's display cabinet.

5.        Nash has pleaded guilty and that can only be to his credit.  The Crown has accepted his version and that can only be to his advantage.  Two cases were cited to us by Advocate Guillaume, AG-v-Graham & Anor (19th August, 1994) Jersey Unreported and Wylie-v-AG (17th January, 2002) CofA [2002/13].  The first case we have not found to be of any help; there is just not enough information in it.  But in Wylie, the Court of Appeal considered four years as manifestly excessive; reducing the sentence, the Court stated that it felt that too much emphasis had been placed on the value of the goods and not enough discount given for a guilty plea.

6.        We questioned Crown Advocate Matthews on that point and he felt that two years had been given in mitigation for the guilty plea and the other mitigating factors.  That seems to us to be generous.  The plea of guilty is valuable but there is little else.  Nothing has been recovered; the named person has not been found; the fingerprints were inside the cabinet; and, as we have said, Nash came to Jersey on his own admission under a false name and with the sole purpose of committing a serious crime in this jurisdiction within the course of a day.  He has not been convicted of a crime for 3½ years and it may well be, in Advocate Guillaume's words, that he is "maturing".  However, despite everything that Advocate Guillaume has urged upon us, this was a serious pre-planned operation and we follow the conclusions of the Crown.  Nash, you are sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

Authorities

Wylie-v-AG  (17th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2002/13].

AG-v-Graham & Anor  (19th August, 1994) Jersey Unreported.