Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC112

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

4^th July 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Andrew Scott Page

 

 

1 count of:	Escaping from lawful custody without force, contrary to Article 22 A of the Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978: (Count 2: Cannabis).

 

 

Age:     24.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Page was serving a sixteen month sentence for receiving stolen goods and had been allowed an escorted home visit to see his girlfriend and her child.  During the visit Page was not hand-cuffed to the Prison Officer.  Having been to beach and cooked a meal back at his girlfriend's home, Page then took the opportunity to run from the kitchen out of the front door while the Prison Office was in the lounge.  Page remained at large for two days, despite speaking on the telephone to the Prison Governor, and was eventually caught hiding behind a seat on a bus travelling from town to St Ouens.

This was the second "incident" that had occurred while Page had been granted privileges at the prison - earlier in the year he had been sentenced to an extra 9 months' imprisonment for an offence of larceny committed while allowed unescorted day-release.  He had also been late returning on that former occasion.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea (although inevitable), residual youth, totality, no previous convictions for escaping custody, remorse, unfortunate background and efforts to reform.

 

Previous Convictions:

Long and unenviable record comprising some 173 offences.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	9 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 1:	6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Page trusted by Prison Governor and he had breached that trust.  Although this was an opportunistic escape, a consecutive sentence bound to follow.  Court particularly impressed with efforts made to reform since re-arrest and have had regard to totality.  Court reduced Crown's conclusions to 6 months' imprisonment consecutive to any penalty presently being served for the escape, with 1 month's imprisonment concurrent for possession of cannabis.

 

C.M.M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R Juste for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were trusted by the Prison Governor to go on an escorted home visit and you breached that trust by escaping, and by remaining at large for some 2 days.  Miss Juste has, on your behalf, put forward a very powerful case in mitigation which she expressed most persuasively. 

2.        In particular we accept that this was an opportunistic escape which occurred following an argument with your new girlfriend and that it was linked in your mind to the events which had happened on the previous occasion when you had failed to return. 

3.        We have considered the six points in mitigation which Miss Juste put forward and, in particular, we are impressed with the effort you are making in prison now to deal with the issues which confront you, and we very much hope, as you do, that this is indeed a turning point in your life.

4.        We have regard to the totality principle and the points which Miss Juste has made.  We have to impose a consecutive sentence.  Those who break prison have to expect that their total prison sentence will be extended.  We think, in all the circumstances, that a total sentence of 6 months additionally is correct.  Therefore, the sentence is as follows: on Count 1: 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the sentences you are currently serving; Count 2: 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent; in other words a total additional sentence of 6 months, and the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Le Cocq & Tregaskis (1994) Jersey Unreported; [1994/148].

Current Sentencing Practice: Part B8-5 Escape from Lawful Custody.