Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC205

ROYAL COURT

(Superior Number)

(exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it

by Article 22 of the Court of Appeal (Jersey) Law, 1961)

22^nd November, 2004

Alexander Stevenson

-v-

The Attorney General

Application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time within which to make such application against 3 months of a total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, passed on 9th July, 2004, by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to:

The appeal is restricted to the sentences passed on counts 2 and 3.

The application for leave to appeal placed directly before the plenary Court, without first being submitted to a Single Judge for determination.

The Appellant on his own behalf;

R.G. Morris, Esq., Crown Advocate.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Alexander Stevenson pleaded guilty on 9^th July, 2004, to 1 count of breaking and entry and larceny by pushing a scaffold pole through the window of a jeweller's shop and stealing watches; 1 count of possession of cannabis resin; and 1 count of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.

2.        On the first count he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, on the second count, to 1 month's imprisonment and on the third count to 2 months' imprisonment, and all these sentences were ordered to run consecutively, making a total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.

3.        Viewed in the round the applicant can regard himself as fortunate that a relatively modest sentence was imposed for the totality of the offending.  The task of this Court, however, is not to examine the totality of the offending, but to examine the propriety of each of the two sentences against which the applicant seeks leave to appeal, namely the sentence of 1 month for possession of cannabis, and 2 months' for obstructing a police officer.

4.        So far as the offence of possession of cannabis is concerned, the applicant has drawn our attention to guidelines in the Magistrates' Court which might appear to indicate that a non-custodial sentence would ordinarily be imposed for the possession of a quarter gram of cannabis which was a very small quantity.  However, this was the third occasion upon which the applicant had committed an infraction of the misuse of drugs legislation, and applying the usual test, which this Court is bound to apply, we cannot find that a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment for a third offence of possession of cannabis is manifestly excessive.

5.        So far as the offence of obstructing a police officer is concerned, the facts of this offence, as put to the Court below, were that at about ten minutes before midnight on Wednesday 10^th March, 2004, police officers were directed to go to the Accident and Emergency Department of the General Hospital following a report of a patient causing a disturbance.  The applicant had gone to the hospital seeking medicine for alleviation of back pain and had been asked to leave the premises.  The applicant had refused to leave stating that he had nowhere to sleep and that he wanted a bed for the night.  The applicant told us that there was a misunderstanding in that respect and that he had not wanted a bed at the hospital, but had wanted a bed at the police station.  Nothing really turns upon that, because the police officers asked the applicant to leave the hospital and he refused.  The Accident and Emergency Department was relatively busy and the actions of the applicant were inconsistent with the proper running of that Department.

6.        The applicant, having refused to obey the police officer's instruction to leave the Hospital, was arrested for refusing to obey lawful orders.

7.        The applicant told us that he had not been drunk on this occasion, he had not been abusive, and apart from refusing to comply with the police officer's instruction to leave, he had done nothing wrong.  Those submissions of the applicant are consistent with what the Court below was told.  The Court considers that a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment for this conduct was manifestly excessive.  We think that a short sentence of imprisonment would have been justified, but we do not think that a sentence of 2 months' imprisonment can in all the circumstances be justified for this refusal without aggravating circumstances to obey a police instruction. 

8.        We therefore grant the application for leave to appeal out of time.  We grant leave to appeal and we quash the sentence of 2 months' imprisonment imposed on count 3; and substitute therefor a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment to run consecutively to the other sentences imposed by the Royal Court on 9^th July.  To that extent the appeal is allowed.

Authorities

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey: pp. 64-7.

Ibid (2^nd Ed'n - Updated to Nov '03): pp.182-3.

AG-v-Gaffney (5^th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported; [1995/101].