Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC195

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

31^st October, 2003.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Mathew Richard Bendell;

R de JL;

Paul Robert John Derrien.

 

Mathew Richard Bendell

First Indictment

 

1 count of:	Breaking and entering and Larceny (Count 1).
1 count of:	Breaking and entering with intent to commit crime (Count 2).

 

Age:     23.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Bendell, R de JL and Derrien drove in Derrien's van to St Quen.  Derrien stopped at the side of Le Chemin du Moulin and turned off the van lights.  Bendell got out and went to a nearby property where he broke into a garage and stole a box of champagne valued at £72.00.  He then returned to Derrien's van and placed the alcohol in the back.

Bendell and R de JL then approached a second house carrying gloves and a torch.  Whilst R de JL kept a lookout, Bendell broke into the property with intent to steal something inside.  However, on entering the lounge he was confronted by the female occupant of the house who had been woken by the flashlights.

At this point Bendell ran past the owner and out of the house.  Bendell and R de JL then ran across fields and through woods back to Derrien's van, where they got in and told him to drive.

Derrien was pulled over by the Police, who were on their way to the second break-in, a little farther down the same road.  All three were arrested and the stolen goods recovered.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; no damage caused; one of premises entered was unoccupied garage; low value goods stolen; no violence used; relative youth; remorse.

 

Previous Convictions:

6 previous convictions comprising 87 offences, including unenviable number of break and entries for which various custodial sentences served.

 

Conclusions:

 

First Indictment

 

Count 1:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.  The Court noted an appalling record and particularly serious offending.

 

R de JL

First Indictment

 

1 count of:

Aiding, assisting or participating in breaking and entering with intent to commit crime (Count 2A).

 

Second Indictment

 

2 counts of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948, as amended (Count 1, Count 3).
1 count of:	Driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 9 (4) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law, 1956, as amended (Count 2).

 

Breach of a 12 month Probation Order with 90 hours Community Service Order, made by Royal Court on 4^th April, 2003, following Guilty pleas to 1 count of aiding, assisting or participating in illegal entry and larceny; and 1 count of aiding assisting or participating in breaking and entering and larceny.

Age:     16

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

See Bendell (above).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; youth (16 years old); only acted as lookout; just left school - no direction; recently became a father in a stable relationship.

 

Previous Convictions:

5 previous convictions comprising 13 offences.  In breach of probation order dated April, 2003, resulting from further aid and assist in break and entry.

 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

 

Count 2A:

12 months' Youth Detention.

 

Second Indictment

 

Count 1:	2 weeks' Youth Detention.
Count 2:	2 weeks' Youth Detention, concurrent; 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 3:	2 weeks' Youth Detention, concurrent.

Breach of Probation Order:  3 months' Youth Detention on each count, concurrent.

Sentences on both indictments and on breach of Probation Order to be concurrent:  Total: 12 months' Youth Detention; 2 years' disqualification from driving.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

 

Count 2A:

9 months' Youth Detention.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	2 weeks' Youth Detention; 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	2 weeks' Youth Detention, concurrent; 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 weeks' Youth Detention, concurrent; 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.

 

Breach of Probation Order:  3 months' Youth Detention on each count, concurrent.

Sentences on both Indictments and on breach of Probation Order concurrent: Total: 9 months' Youth Detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving.

 

Paul Robert John Derrien

First Indictment

 

1 count of:

Receiving, hiding or withholding goods (Count 1B).

 

Age:     22.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

See Bendell above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; relative youth; minor role in offences; naïve; supportive employer.

 

Previous Convictions:

Nothing relevant.

 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

 

Count 1B:

180 hours Community Service Order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

First Indictment

 

Count 1B:

The Court accepted that Derrien was in a different position and played a minor part.  The Court noted his employment record and ordered 120 hours Community Service (the equivalent of 6 months' imprisonment).

 

 

 

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

Advocate J. Bell for M.R. Bendell.

Advocate A.J.D. Winchester for R. de J.L.

Advocate D. Cadin for P.R.J. Derrien.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Bendell you have an appalling record for someone of your age including a number of offences of a type similar to those with which you are charged today.  It is clear to us that you were the instigator of these two offences.  To commit a burglary of residential property at night is always regarded as particularly serious, because of the fear that can be caused to occupiers who are woken from their sleep to find a stranger in their house.  That is just what happened in this case, in one of the charges, when the lady occupier awoke.

2.        As this Court said in Attorney General -v- Allo and Collins [1983] JJ 85, it is common knowledge that breaking into a private dwelling has the most distressing effect invariably on the occupiers of the dwelling.  Sometimes that effect takes the form of fear and in all cases it takes the form of distress.  We believe that this is an element of the offence which is not always sufficiently appreciated by some courts, but certainly it is appreciated by this Court.  In Attorney General -v- da Silva [1997] JLR N.14A (14^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/218], this Court endorsed the comments in R -v- Edwards & Brandy to the effect that the centre of the bracket for breaking into occupied residential property at night will be 3 years' on a guilty plea.  The actual sentence of course may be more or less than that depending on all circumstances.

3.        We have taken into account your guilty plea.  We have also taken into account that you kept out of trouble for a year when you last came out and the other matters which Mr Bell has put forward. 

4.        We think the Crown's conclusions are correct.  The sentence of the Court is 2 years' imprisonment on one count and 3 years' imprisonment on the other count as moved for by the Crown.

5.        R de JL, you are only 16 and yet you have already been before the Court on five occasions.  Mostly for offences of taking and driving away but in April this year you were placed on probation by this Court for breaking and entering.  That was the third time you had been placed on probation.  You have broken previous probation orders and now you have breached this one imposed by the Royal Court by committing these offences.

6.        You are no longer at school, you are unemployed and the reports make it clear that you are at a very high risk of re-offending.  We accept that you were not the ring leader and that these were committed on the spur of the moment.  You were led on by Bendell.  We note the guilty plea and also the fact that you had not re-offended for awhile before the present offences.  The fact is that you have now re-offended, you are not employed and you are just sitting at home doing nothing.

7.        The Court has considered carefully whether probation and community service could be imposed as has been submitted by your counsel, and indeed as is recommended in the Social Enquiry Report; but in our judgment you have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and you appear unable to respond to them.  In the circumstances we are satisfied there is no alternative now to a sentence of youth detention.  You must face up to the responsibility of what you are doing.  However, you are only 16 and, we think the minimum possible sentence should be imposed for a person so young.  The sentence is therefore 9 months' youth detention on the first indictment.  On the Second Indictment, 2 weeks' youth detention, on count 1; 2 weeks' on count 2; 2 weeks' on count 3. All concurrent.  We disqualify you from driving on all three of those charges for 2 years.  In relation to the offences for which you were placed on probation earlier this year you are similarly sentenced to 3 months' youth detention, as moved for by the Crown, also concurrent.  So the total sentence is 9 months' youth detention, and I must warn you, you may be subject to supervision when you are released.

8.        Derrien you only face one charge and are in a different position to the other two because you have no previous convictions other than what appear to be a large number of parking offences, and we accept you played a very minor part in this offence.  We also note the contents of the Social Enquiry Report and in particular that you are at low risk of re-offending.  You are now employed and we commend you for that.  We were originally minded to impose a fine but we think in fact that that is not practical given the fact that we have been informed that you owe £1,350 to the Viscount's Department; we think to fine you additionally is likely to lead to difficulties in paying off such a large debt.  We think you should pay your debt to the community by doing Community Service.  We are going to impose a Community Service Order of 120 hours and we state that bearing in mind your very limited involvement and your previous record.  The sentence we would have had in mind would have been 6 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Attorney General -v- Anderton et Al [2003] JRC064.

McInerney and Keating -v-R [2002] EWCA Crim 3003.

Attorney General -v- da Silva [1997] JLR N.14A; (4th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported [1997/218].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): paras 378-94.

Attorney General -v- Allo and Collins [1983] JJ 85.

Attorney General -v- Gouveia [2000] JLR 324.