Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC199

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

5^th November, 2003.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

C.T.K.

L.I.M.

J.C.

 

C.T.K.

Second Indictment

 

1 count of:	Taking and driving away a motor vehicle without consent contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1);
1 count of:	Driving underage, contrary to Article 13 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2);
2 counts of:	Driving uninsured, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (Counts 3, 15);
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report accident, contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4);
1 count of	Escaping from lawful custody without force, contrary to Article 22A of the Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 (Count 6);
1 count of:	Attempting to break and enter with intent to commit crime (Count 10);
1 count of:	Breaking and entering and larceny (Count 11);
1 count of:	Attempting to take and drive away a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 13).

 

[The Defendant pleaded not guilty to Counts 12, 16 and 17, which plea was accepted by the Crown].

Third Indictment

 

1 count of:

Larceny.

 

Breach of 12 months' Probation Order, made by Juvenile Youth Court on 7^th May, 2003, on Guilty plea to 5 counts of malicious damage and 4 motoring offences.

 

Age:     14

 

Plea:    Guilty, breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

The three youths had gone on a spree of offending, some of the offences put themselves and the public at risk - e.g. driving without a licence, without insurance and in some cases, having consumed alcohol.  The material period ranged from December 2002 to August 2003.  The delays in bringing the prosecution before the Royal Court were caused by the defendants repeatedly escaping from Greenfields Centre and re-offending whilst at large.  One of the most serious counts was on 3^rd August, 2003, when LIM and JC went on the rampage at Greenfields Centre, smashing everything within the school gymnasium, damaging windows, doors, furniture and all the recreational equipment in the gym, including a television, video, Nintendo Game Cube, computer and peripherals, music centre, CD's and Yamaha Keyboard.  The ceiling was also damaged with metal legs, which had been torn off computer tables and used to poke holes in the walls and ceiling, damaging fluorescent light fittings.  Desks and gym mats were rendered unusable, being contaminated with blood and glass.  The estimated cost of repairs was £15,000.  The defendants' activity had deprived other children at Greenfields from benefiting from use of the equipment which had been smashed.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; CTK and JC expressed some remorse, but LIM was unrepentant.  JC had been on remand at Greenfields since February, 2003; CTK and LIM had been on remand at Greenfields since May, 2003.  LIM was subject to a Care Order; JC had a diffiucult background; CTK was a talented musician and intelligent youth but also had a difficult background.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

Discharge of original probation order; 2 years' probation order; attendance at Offending is Not the Only Choice course.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Discharge of original probation order; 2 years' probation order; 6 months' curfew (21.00 to 07.00); must attend Offending is Not the Only Choice course.

 

L.I.M.

Second Indictment

 

1 count of:	Being carried in motor vehicle without consent contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 5);
2 counts of:	Escaping from lawful custody without force contrary to Article 22 A of the Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 (Count 6, Count 21);
1 count of:	Malicious damage (Count 7);
1 count of:	Illegal entry and larceny (Count 8);
2 counts of	Attempting to break and enter with intent to commit crime (Count 10, 12);
1 count of:	Breaking and entering and larceny (Count 11);
1 count of:	Attempting to take and drive away a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 13);
1 count of:	Breaking and entering and larceny (Count 14);
1 count of:	Taking and driving away a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 18);
1 count of:	Driving uninsured, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (Count 19);
1 count of:	Driving underage, contrary to Article 13 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 20);

 

Breach of 12 months' Binding Over Order made by Jersey Youth Court on 7^th May, 2003, on Guilty plea to breaking and entering and committing crime; criminal hoax; breach of previous Binding Over Order.

Age:     12.

 

Plea:    Guilty, breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

See CTK above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See CTK above.

 

Previous Convictions:

2 convictions comprising 8 offences involving assault, larceny, breaking and entering.

 

Conclusions:

12 months Probation Order with condition of residence at La Préférence (Greenfields declined to offer place).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted; in addition, 6 months' curfew: 21.00 - 07.00.

During sentencing, Court required the Director of Education, Sport & Culture to attend the Court to explain why Greenfields had informed the Court it could not offer a place for LIM, which had been the recommendation of the professionals.  Mr McKeon duly attended and explained that Greenfields was forced to revert to its statutory function as a secure remand centre only, because it was under intense pressure, due to the number of youngsters currently on secure remands.  Court observed that this was a deplorable situation which tied the Court's hands.  The interests of LIM and the public dictated that he should be in secure accommodation but it was apparently not an option open to the Court.  Court expressed hope that situation would be remedied by the Committee as soon as possible.

 

J.C.

First Indictment

 

1 count of:	Taking and driving away a motor vehicle without consent contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1);
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report accident contrary to Article 27 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2);
1 count of:	Driving without due care and attention contrary to Article 15 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Counts 3);
1 count of:	Driving underage, contrary to Article 13 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4);
1 count of:	Driving uninsured, contrary to Article 2 (1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948 (Count 5);
1 count of:	Breaking and entering and larceny (Count 6);
3 counts of:	Escaping from lawful custody, without force, contrary to Article 22 of the Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 (Count 7, 10 13);
3 counts of:	Malicious damage (Count 8, 9, 14);
1 count of:	Being carried in motor vehicle taken without consent, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 11);
1 count of:	Tampering with mechanism of motor vehicle, contrary to Article 29 (2) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 12).

 

Second Indictment

 

2 counts of:	Escaping from lawful custody, without force, contrary to Article 22 A of the Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 (Count 6, 21);
1 count of:	Malicious damage (Count 9);
1 count of:	Attempting to break and enter with intent to commit crime (Count 12);
1 count of:	Attempting to take and drive away a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to Article 28 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 13).

 

Breach of 2 years' Probation Order, with reporting and curfew conditions made by Royal Court on 4^th October, 2002, [2002/181] on guilty plea to 1 count of illegal entry, 1 count of malicious damage, I count of breaking and entering and larceny and various motoring offences and admitted breaches of 3 Probation Orders made by Jersey Youth Court.

Breach of concurrent 2 years' Probation Order, made by the Jersey Youth Court on 6^th November, 2002, of guilty plea to 1 count of aiding/abetting breaking and entering and committing crime and 1 count of larceny of unattended motor vehicle.

 

Age:     14

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

See CTK above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See CTK above. 

 

Previous Convictions:

7 convictions involving 33 offences involving assault, malicious damage, larceny and motoring offences.

 

Conclusions:

Discharge of original probation order; 2 years' probation order; 6 months' curfew (21.00 - 07.00).

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate Mrs S.A. Pearmain for C.T.K.

Advocate J. Bell for L.I.M.

Advocate P.C. Harris for J.C.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You three committed a spree of offences.  It is bad enough to take and drive away other peoples' cars without insurance, but to do so on some occasions when you have been drinking is a real risk to the lives of yourselves and of other people.  I hope you realise the seriousness of what you did.

2.        JC you have an appalling record.  The Court gave you a chance last year, when I was sitting, and placed you on probation.  You made real efforts for a few months but then you committed all these offences.  We warned you at the time that there was a risk of your being sent to England if you committed further offences and we have carefully considered today whether we should now do that. 

3.        The Probation Service recommend you should be given a chance.  They think you should be given a chance to show that you can change your ways.  They have put in an enormous amount of work in trying to help you, and we are persuaded that we should go along with their recommendation.  You must realise that if you re-offend you will be remanded back to Greenfields.  You should also understand that if you offend and come before this Court after March of next year, when you are 15, you know where you are likely to go. 

4.        We are going to give you a chance as suggested and we will discharge the existing orders and make a new Probation Order for 2 years.  We impose a curfew of 9.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. for 6 months and that can be varied by Probation coming back to the Court earlier if they wish to.

5.        CTK, you too have a record of previous offences, but it is clear to us from the various reports that you are a talented boy and you have got considerable promise.  We hope that you can mend your ways and show and fulfil that promise.  We are going to follow the recommendations of the Probation Service and we are going to discharge the existing order, put you on probation for 2 years on condition that you attend the course "Offending is not the Only Choice".  We are going to impose a curfew in your case as well of 9.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. for 6 months with a similar provision for the Probation Service to come back earlier if you are behaving.

6.        LIM for one so young you too have a very poor record.  All the reports we have received are quite clear.  They say that you would benefit from staying in the secure accommodation at Greenfields where you have been on remand.  The preference of the reports is for a Probation Order with a condition of residence at Greenfields.  They believe that if you go back to La Préférence you are likely to abscond, in other words escape, and commit more offences.  The Court agrees with that view and thinks that it would undoubtedly have been best if you could have stayed for the time being at Greenfields until you could show that you have mended your ways.

7.        It appears that the Education, Sport and Culture Committee have decided that Greenfields cannot accommodate persons after conviction but only on remand before conviction.  They say, therefore, that there is no alternative in this case to La Préférence. 

8.        The Court, when it received this information, asked Mr. McKeon, the Director of Education, Sport and Culture to attend.  He did so at short notice and we are very grateful to him.  He emphasised that, given the number of youngsters on remand and the other difficulties which he described at Greenfields, it was not possible to accommodate offenders at Greenfields after sentence. 

9.        We have to say that we find this a deplorable situation.  All the experts agree that the best interests of this young boy require him to be in secure accommodation.  The interests of the public certainly also require this because of the rash of offending.  He is highly likely to re-offend if not in secure accommodation and his case is by no means unique.  Yet we are told that there is no such facility in Jersey.  Mr McKeon did, however, emphasise that the Committee recognised the importance of ensuring that some such facility should be available and is working hard on provision of such accommodation at the earliest opportunity, hopefully within the next 12 months; and we would say that we are extremely pleased to hear this.

10.      In the meantime we are unable to do what both the Children's Service and we believe would be the best thing for this young boy and for the public.

11.      The Court is going to give you a chance; it is going to make an order which allows you to go back to La Préférence.  It is up to you.  If you start escaping from La Préférence again, start running away, or if you commit any more offences, then you will find yourself being sent back to Greenfields on remand.  It is up to you to take advantage of this chance, and we hope very much that you will.  The Order of the Court is a 1 year Probation Order, with the condition of residence as the Health and Social Service Committee directs, and we also impose a curfew of 9.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. for 6 months.

Authorities

Attorney General -v- J.C. (4^th October, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/181].