Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC118

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

25^th August 2006

The Attorney General

-v-

Kamil Pawel Dubiel

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The accused was a Polish national, who had been in the island since May, 2004.  In May, 2006, the accused, who was intoxicated, entered a parked van at night and after eating a take away meal inside it, threw the contents of the van around and sprayed graffiti on the inside using a can of lubricant.  The lubricant caused £180 worth of damage to the van carpets (Count 1).  Shortly afterwards, the accused then broke into a car and stole a compass worth £25 and a fleece jacket (Count 2).  These items were later recovered.  After that, the accused entered an occupied dwelling house through an unlocked door and stole items to the value of around £1,000.  It was still night time.  In doing so he disturbed the occupant who was asleep.  The accused took the stolen items outside and went inside the house a second time.  The occupant awoke to find the accused in the flat and confronted him, at which the accused ran away.  The accused was later arrested and the majority of the stolen items were recovered.  He admitted the offences.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea and co-operation; youth; no previous offences.

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Recommendation for deportation.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Recommended for deportation.

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

Advocate A. D. Robinson for Dubiel.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant is to be sentenced for three offences, an offence of malicious damage, an offence of larceny and an offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house by night and stealing property from it.  The dwelling house was occupied and the defendant was disturbed by the occupier.  It is a very serious matter to enter someone else's home by night and, almost invariably, this causes great distress and anxiety to the householder.

2.        The defendant is a Polish national who has lived in Jersey for 2 years.  He has been working as a kitchen porter and undertaking other casual work.  He is aged 20 and has no previous convictions.  The offences seem to have been unplanned and to his credit the defendant has cooperated with the Police and pleaded guilty to the Indictment.  He has expressed, through his Counsel, some remorse for his actions. 

3.        The Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 provides that the Court shall not impose a custodial sentence on young offenders unless it is satisfied that no other sentence can be justified.  When a householder wakes up at night to find a stranger at the door of his bedroom it must be a very frightening and distressing experience.  In fact the defendant offered no violence, but the householder was not to know that that was to be the case.

4.        We are satisfied that the offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house by night, in the circumstances in which the defendant committed the offence, was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

5.        We have given full weight to all the mitigating circumstances and we propose to allow slightly more for that mitigation than was allowed in the Crown Advocate's conclusions.

6.        The sentence of the Court is as follows, on Count 1 you will be sentenced to 14 days' youth detention, on Count 2 to 1 month's youth detention and on Count 3 to 12 months' youth detention, making a total of 12 months youth detention, all those sentences to run concurrently.

7.        We turn now to consider the question of deportation.  As this Court has said, on many occasions, there is no room in the island for the criminals of other nationalities.  In accordance with the guideline cases we have asked ourselves whether the defendant's continued presence in Jersey would be to the island's detriment.  We have considered all the matters set out in the background reports.  We think, as did Mr Gaffoor, that there is a substantial risk that the defendant will continue to offend and it is not therefore in the interests of this community that he should be permitted to remain.  It is a privilege to live in Jersey and if serious offences are committed that privilege may be forfeited.  No human rights factors arise, as the defendant has no family in Jersey.  We accordingly will recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that the defendant be deported from Jersey at the conclusion of his sentence.

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994.