Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC148

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

5^th September 2008

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Le Brocq and Liddiard.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Martin Roberts

LG

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

David Martin Roberts

2 counts of:	Attempting to take a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count of:	Larceny.  (Count 3).
1 count of:	Taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Count 4).
1 count of:	Driving without a licence, contrary to Article 4(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.  (Count 5).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948.  (Count 6).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply it to another, contrary to Article 8(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 7).
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 8).
1 count of:	Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5(c) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.  (Count 9).
1 count of:	Assault.  (Count 10).
1 count of:	Breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.  (Count 11).

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Roberts attempted to take and drive away a motor bike and a car.  Roberts had been caught because his blood was on both vehicles.  He stole a CD player and changer from the car.  He then took and drove away a car from the forecourt of a garage and drove it and abandoned it.  He had never held a driving licence and therefore did not have insurance. 

Roberts was arrested with 15 bags of herbal cannabis in his possession (Count 7).  At interview, he admitted previous supply of cannabis (Count 8) and assisting friends to obtain cannabis (Count 9). 

Roberts and LG broke into the Hotel Ambassadeur.  LG made two attempts to get through the sky-light and then together they entered through the front door.  One staff member said that Roberts kicked the door and another staff member said they both did.  Once inside the premises, Roberts punched the hotel manager once in the face, but no injuries were caused.  The Police had been called by then and so the staff restrained Roberts until the police arrived.  Roberts was co-operative upon arrest.  LG was aggressive to the police and abusive to the police and staff members, including racist insults. 

Details of Mitigation:

Matters in Alcohol and Drug Report, psychiatric report and SER; remorse and change of heart in relation to his offending behaviour.

Previous Convictions:

Roberts had a lengthy record - no previous for break and entry, assault or drugs offences.  Several convictions for taking and driving away and driving without a licence or insurance.  One instance of breach of community service.

Conclusions:

In relation to Roberts, the Crown bore totality in mind due to his age and moved for sentences which were shorter than would ordinarily be moved for, because of these factors.

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 months' youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 6:	2 months' youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 7:	3 months' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1-6.
Count 8:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 7, but consecutive to Counts 1-6.
Count 9:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent to Counts 7 and 8, but consecutive Counts 1-6.
Count 10:	2 months' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1-6.
Count 11:	12 months' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1-10.

Total: 18 months' youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and the utensils seized sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	1 month's youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	1 month's youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent to Counts 1 and 2.
Count 4:	2 months' youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 6:	2 months' youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent.
Count 7:	3 months' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1-6.
Count 8:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 7, but consecutive to Counts 1-6.
Count 9:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent to Counts 7 and 8, but consecutive Counts 1-6.
Count 10:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent to Counts 1-9.
Count 11:	9 months' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1-9, but concurrent to Count 10.

Total: 14 months' youth detention, 2 years' disqualification from driving.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs and the utensils seized ordered.

LG

1 count of:

Breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.  (Count 11).

Age:  17.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Roberts above.

Details of Mitigation:

Matters in SER, remorse and principally that he was 16 when he committed the offence. 

Previous Convictions:

LG had appalling record including 2 break and entries, 1 illegal entry, 2 attempted break and entries and assisting a break and entry.  He had been given numerous non-custodial penalties and breached nearly all of them. 

Conclusions:

In relation to LG the Crown bore in mind the fact that he was 16 when he committed the offence and 17 when he pleaded guilty on indictment.  He had therefore just missed out on the provisions of Article 4 (5) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994, which would have obliged the Court not to impose a sentence greater than 12 months' youth detention.

Count 11:

12 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 11:

9 months' youth detention.

R. C. L. Morley-Kirk, Crown Advocate.

Advocate M. H. Temple for Roberts.

Advocate R. S. Boddie for LG.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Roberts has pleaded guilty to one count of assault, five motor traffic offences, one offence of larceny of a CD player, three drugs offences involving possession with intent to supply, supplying and being concerned in the supply of cannabis to friends, at no profit.  The amount of cannabis involved was small and falls well below the Campbell guidelines.  Roberts and LG have pleaded guilty to one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime.

2.        Roberts is 18 and LG is 17, therefore they both fall within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994, but LG narrowly misses the provisions of Article 4(5) which would have limited the Court's powers to 12 months youth detention.

3.        Roberts has a lengthy record, but none for breaking and entering, assault or drugs offences.  He has previously been bound over, placed on probation (to which he responded well) and ordered to do community service, which he breached.  He has a serious alcohol problem, often mixed with drugs, so much so that he cannot recall many of the offences.  He is assessed at a high risk of re-offending which, combined with his lack of victim empathy, presents a risk of harm to the public.  As against that he was remanded in custody for some 5 months and the probation office note a positive change in him.  He is free of drugs and alcohol and the probation officer recommended a range of non-custodial sentences. 

4.        LG has an appalling record and he has been given numerous binding over orders and probation orders, almost all of which he has breached.  In the view of the Crown his record shows a blatant disregard for orders of the Court.  He was last released from youth custody 2 months before the commission of this offence.  He is placed at a high risk of re-offending, a risk which would reduce dramatically if he were to gain employment and control his use of alcohol. 

5.        The Crown take the view that in sentencing Roberts the sets of offence, namely the traffic, drugs, breaking and entering and assault offences ought to attract consecutive sentences to reflect the fact that they took place over a long period of time and, save in one respect, we agree. 

6.        In terms of mitigation both defendants have pleaded guilty and both have written to the Court, very good letters, and we have considered those letters and the letters written on their behalf.  We have also, of course, considered very carefully the reports.

7.        The provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 apply and we have to agree that in the case of Roberts the totality of offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  In the case of LG not only is the totality of offending so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified, but he also has a history of failing to respond to non-custodial sentences and is unwilling, or unable, to respond.  However, we agree that LG would ordinarily have been sentenced some time earlier, and would have had the benefit of Article 4(5) of the Law.  Accordingly we intend to reduce the Crown's conclusions in his case and out of fairness to Roberts we will do the same in relation to count 11.  Furthermore in the case of Roberts we conclude that the assault charge can be seen as part of the breaking and entering in which both defendants acted aggressively in different ways, and can therefore be dealt with concurrently.

8.        Before turning to the formal sentences, however, the Court does wish to say to both of you that we do note the positive change and progress that you have made in custody which we applaud and we encourage you to continue and to make the very best of your time in custody.  We sincerely hope that, as you have expressed in your letters, the Courts will not see you again.

9.        Roberts you are sentenced as follows: on count 1; 1 month's youth detention and 2 years' disqualification from driving, count 2; 1 month's youth detention and 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent to count 1, count 3; 1 month's youth detention, concurrent to counts 1 and 2, count 4; 2 months' youth detention and 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent to counts 1-3, count 5; 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent to counts 1-4, count 6; 2 months' youth detention and 2 years' disqualification from driving, concurrent to counts 1-5, count 7; 3 months' youth detention, consecutive to counts 1-6, count 8; count 8; 2 months' youth detention, concurrent to count 7 but consecutive counts 1-6, count 9: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent to count 7 and 8, but consecutive to counts 1-6, count 10; 1 month youth detention, concurrent to counts 1-9, count 11; 9 months; youth detention, consecutive to counts 1-9 but concurrent to count 10.  That makes a total of 14 months' youth detention and 2 years' disqualification from driving. 

10.      LG you are sentenced on count 11 to 9 months' youth detention.

11.      We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and the utensils seized in the case of Roberts.

Authorities

Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie v AG [1995] JLR 136.

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

Whelan Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.