Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC026

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th February 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, Le Brocq, Tibbo, King, Le Cornu and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Anthony Wylie

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, on guilty pleas to:

3 counts of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (Counts 1, 4 and 5).
2 counts of:	Larceny (Counts 2 and 3).
2 counts of:	Received, hid or withheld items knowing them to have been stolen (Counts 2A and 5A).
1 count of:	Dangerous driving contrary to Article 22 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1056 (Count 6).
1 count of:	Violently resisting Police Officers in the execution of their duty (Count 7).

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty on counts 1, 2A, 3, 4A, 5A, 6 and 7.  The Crown accepted Not Guilty pleas to Counts  2, 4 and 5

Details of Offence:

Wylie broke into a residential property which was unoccupied at the time.  There were no signs of a forced entry.  He stole property to the value of £15,290.  A cigarette butt had been found at the scene which had a DNA profile matching that of Wylie.  Of the items stolen, items to the value of £11,799 were recovered from Wylie.  Items to the value of £3,491 were therefore missing and unaccounted for.  (Count 1).

A child's mini motorcycle to the value of £375 was stolen from a showroom.  No forced entry was gained.  The motorcycle was subsequently found in Wylie's possession when he was attempting to leave the Island.  (Count 2A).

The owner of a red BMW 330ci sports coupe with a value of £20,000 had decided to sell his vehicle and left the vehicle with a garage for the purposes of it being sold.  Overnight the car was taken and it is not known how access was gained to the keys for the vehicle.  The following day a set of new number plates were purchased by Wylie and his new "false" number reflected the number plate which already existed on a motor vehicle of the same make and model as that of the BMW stolen from the garage (Count 3).

Two residential properties on the same Estate in St Peter were broken into.  They were unoccupied at the time.  Entry to both properties was gained by the smashing of a window.  Goods to the value of £6,535 were stolen from the first property.  £4,700 of those items were recovered in the possession of Wylie.  In relation to the second property items to the value of £5,918 were stolen and £2,810 worth of items were recovered by the Police in Wylie's possession.  There remained missing and unaccounted for items to the value of £3,108 (Counts 4A and 5A).

Wylie was stopped by Police Officers whilst waiting to board the car ferry at the Queen Elizabeth II Quay.  Wylie was driving a silver Jaguar motor vehicle.  He was pulled over and asked to stop.  He was asked for proof of identification and his travel documents etc.  He produced his driving licence which was in his name but the ticket was in the name of a "Mr D. Dickinson".  When the Officer queried why the ticket was not in Wylie's own name, Wylie gave the explanation that his girlfriend had booked the ticket.  The boot of the vehicle was opened and it was noted that there was a child's motorcycle in the boot.  It is apparent that Wylie then panicked and drove off at speed and drove out of the seaside area of the Harbour against the one way system.  Traffic and pedestrian density in the Harbour was heavy (Count 6).

Police Officers received information that Wylie was meeting his ex-girlfriend.  They attended at the location.  The Officers were spotted and Wylie got into a red BMW car (which is the subject of Count 3) in an attempt to escape.  He drove into the marked Police car and also reversed into an unmarked Police car and a passing taxi.  Officers had to use their asps to smash the windows to the car to remove the car keys and then they had to physically remove Wylie from the vehicle.  The total amount of the damage caused to the 4 vehicles was £9,745.56.  Items of stolen property were found within the BMW including a substantial quantity of the jewellery stolen from the 3 break ins.  A plasma screen TV was found in the boot together with one of the original number plates for that vehicle.  Wylie's fingerprints were found on the number plates.

When interviewed by Police he relied upon his right to silence albeit on occasions he was rude and abusive to the interviewing Officers.  He did, however, offer co-operation to locate the whereabouts of the Jaguar motor vehicle and when this was located by the Police, further stolen property was found within it, including the mini motor cycle.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown viewed this as a mini crime wave committed by Wylie in the space of a three day period.  He had not been co-operative or provided any assistance to the Police in locating the missing items from the breaking and entry which he had committed or giving any other information in relation to the identity of the persons who had committed the other two break ins and who had then provided him with the stolen property.  Both at the Harbour and at the time of his arrest he had shown a total disregard for not only his own safety but also for the safety of the Police Officers and innocent members of the public who were in the vicinity.

He was a mature individual with an atrocious criminal record.  The guilty pleas were not entered at the earliest occasion but he was entitled to a degree of credit for those guilty pleas.  The Crown had regard to the totality of this criminal conduct when considering its Conclusions.  The Crown noted that there was a substantial jump in terms of length and severity from his previous sentence of imprisonment but this had been more than matched by a corresponding jump in the seriousness and range of his offending.

The Defence in mitigation put forward 5 points in mitigation:

1.        Guilty plea.  It was contended that these pleas were of value and had been entered at an early opportunity.

2.        He had been co-operative in providing information as to the location of the Jaguar car which contained stolen property.  In relation to the break in committed by him it was contended that only the property found on him from that break in was the property took.  He was unable to explain how the victims had suffered a greater loss.

3.        He had a good work record when not in custody.  At the time he was under severe pressure at work which had been exacerbated by his Community Service obligations for a previous offence.

4.        He had expressed remorse for his conduct.  Wylie apologised for his abusive language to the Officers in interview and he acknowledged that he had reacted inappropriately to their questioning.  The best evidence of remorse was his guilty plea but a letter written by Wylie was also handed to the Court.  The Crown was seeking a Compensation Order. Wylie did not oppose the making of that Order.  This was a further sign of his remorse.

5.        The Defence contended that having applied the totality principle, Wylie's criminal conduct deserved a lesser sentence than being sought by the Crown.

Previous Convictions:

A bad record having appeared on 20- occasions for a total of some 79 offences.  Numerous previous offences for dishonesty including breaking and entry, receiving and larceny, malicious damage, offences of violence and motoring offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2A:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 4A:	2 years' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 5A:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent with sentences imposed for Count 2A and Count 4A.
Count 6:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 7:	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Total 7 years' imprisonment.

The Crown sought a Compensation Order in the sum of £2,500 pursuant to the Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law, 1994.  The Crown put forward a suggested division of the sum as between the victims of Wylie's criminal conduct.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 2A:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 4A:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent with Count 2A.
Count 5A:	1 year's imprisonment, concurrent with sentences imposed for Count 2A, and Count 4A but consecutive to Count 1.
Count 6:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 7:	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

Counts 2A, 4A and 5A were concurrent with each other but consecutive to Count 1 and Counts 1, 3 6 and 7 were consecutive.

Total Sentence 6 years' imprisonment.

Wylie was to be sentenced for one offence of breaking and entry and larceny, three offences of receiving, one offence of larceny of a motor vehicle, one offence of dangerous driving and one offence of violently resisting Police Officers.  These offences were committed over a period of three days and correctly categorised by the Crown as a mini crime wave.  The Court viewed as serious the breaking and entering into private accommodation and stealing a serious matter as it involved a violation of the privacy of the home owner and the larceny of goods.  He had received property stolen from two of these break ins which were of sentimental value and found in his possession within 72 hours.  He had violently attempted to evade arrest and put at risk Police Officers and others and perhaps was fortunate not to be charged with more serious offences.  Wylie had a long criminal record including offences for which he received a 2½ year term of imprisonment in 2001.  The offences were committed whilst on probation for earlier offences.  In mitigation he pleaded guilty and was entitled to credit.  He had co-operated to a certain extent.  He was not resisting the Compensation Order.  When not in custody he had a good work record and he continued to be supported by his girlfriend.  The Court stood back from the individual offences to see whether the Crown's Conclusions were justified.  The Court had viewed matters in the round having regard to the totality principle.

The Court made a Compensation Order in the sum of £2,500 to be apportioned as follows:

1.      £500 to each of the victims in Counts 1, 3, 4A and 5A.

2.      £500 to the taxi driver in Count 6.

The Court also congratulated D.C. De La Cour on his keen sense of observation but for which it is highly likely that Wylie would have left the jurisdiction and a large proportion of the stolen property would not have been recovered.

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Tremoceiro for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Wylie is to be sentenced for one offence of breaking and entering and larceny, three offences of receiving stolen property, one offence of larceny of a valuable motor car, one offence of dangerous driving and one offence of violently resisting police officers.  The offences took place over a period of 3 days and were rightly described by the Crown Advocate as a "mini crime wave".

2.        Breaking into private dwelling accommodation and stealing personal possessions of great value, quite apart from sentimental value, has always been regarded as a serious matter and as a violation of the privacy of the home.  Wylie admitted receiving goods to the value of several thousands of pounds.  Goods which had been stolen within 72 hours of the defendant's arrest.  Wylie's violent attempts to evade detention or arrest put at risk the personal safety of police officers and others and he is fortunate not to be facing  more serious charges in that respect. 

3.        He has a long criminal record including offences for which he was sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment in 2001.  These offences were committed whilst he was on probation for other offences.  He has, however, in mitigation pleaded guilty to the indictment and he is entitled to credit for that.  He co-operated with the police to a certain extent which led to the recovery of some of the stolen property.  He has not resisted the application for a compensation order.  When not in custody he has a good work record and he is supported by his girlfriend of some years standing.

4.        We have as suggested by counsel for the defendant tried to stand back from the individual offences which would indeed have justified the sentences for which the Crown Advocate has moved.  Viewing the matter in the round and applying the totality principle we will impose the following sentences on the indictment.  On Count 1, you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment.  On Count 2A to 1 year's imprisonment.  On Count 3 to 1 year's imprisonment.  On Count 4A to 1 year's imprisonment.  On Count 5A to 1 year.  On Count 6 to 3 months' imprisonment.  On Count 7 to 9 months' imprisonment.  The sentences on Counts 2A, 4A and 5A will be concurrent with each other but consecutive to Count 1.  The sentences on Counts 3,6 and 7 will all be consecutive to each other and to the previous sentences imposed making a total of 6 years' imprisonment. 

5.                   We make a compensation order under the Criminal Justice Compensation Orders (Jersey) Law 1994 and order compensation of £500 to each of the victims of Counts 1, 3, 4A and 5A and £500 compensation to the taxi driver whose vehicle was damaged as a result of the violent resisting of arrest. 

6.                   Finally we commend DC de la Cour for his keen sense of observation at the harbour, without which the defendant would have left the Island with much of the stolen property.

Authorities

Criminal Justice Compensation Orders (Jersey) Law 1994.