Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC201

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

16^th October 2009

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Clapham and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

JC

JL

SC

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

JC

First Indictment

1 counts of:	Malicious damage (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 2).

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Taking a vehicle without the owner's consent or other authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count of:	Driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to Article 28 of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Driving a motor vehicle while disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle without insurance, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 5).

Age:  16.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

On the First Indictment JC and JL armed themselves with scaffold poles (Count 2) and went looking for a youth who had allegedly assaulted a girl by opening a car door on her.  They confronted one youth outside a public house in Ouaisne and threatened to smash his car windscreen if he did not tell them where the assailant was.  They were then driven by a friend to the alleged assailant's mother's house, where they used the scaffold poles to smash a window (Count 1) in the dead of night.  Mother was in the house at the time and was woken.  JC was seen fleeing the scene.  The damage cost £178 to repair.

Second Indictment

JC alone obtained the keys to a Porsche and drove it away (Count 1).  He was spotted by the police and led them on a high speed, night time chase around the Island.  The car was recovered three days later.  JC's palm print was found on the driver's side window.

A few days later all three defendants were together.  They had been drinking and were drunk.  They took without consent a Mazda MX5 sports car, which JC drove around the Island with his co-defendants together on the passenger seat.  Just before 4am JC pulled away at speed and high revs from outside the General Hospital in St Helier, lost control and crashed the car into the hospital wall.  He and JL were arrested by police officers as they left the vehicle, which was written off.  SC was arrested the following day.  JL suffered sufficiently serious facial injuries that he was detained in hospital for two nights.  JC was breathalysed two hours later and was still almost twice over the legal limit.  He was also a disqualified driver and had no insurance.

All three re-offended on these indictments just days after being sentenced by the Royal Court for offences of public disorder and affray, in which the victim had been repeatedly kicked, punched and stamped on whilst on the floor.  For those offences JC had received six months youth custody, JL 12 months probation and 145 hours CSO and SC 6 months probation and 110 hours CSO. 

JC and JL were assessed by Probation as posing a high risk of re-offending.  SC was assessed as posing a low to medium risk.  He had shown growing maturity at school and had responded well to his earlier probation and CSO since this latest arrest.  His offending was limited to a single instance of allowing himself to be carried and his criminal record was minor in comparison with his co-defendants.  His case could therefore be treated differently from JC's and JL's, who had shown themselves unwilling or unable to comply with probation and thus qualified for custodial sentences under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) Law 1994, Article 4.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity.

Previous Convictions:

27 previous convictions for motor crime, dishonesty and violence.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' youth detention, concurrent to Second Indictment.
Count 2:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent to Second Indictment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent and 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 2:	10 months' youth detention and 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 3:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent and 2 years' disqualification from driving.
Count 4:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 10 months' youth detention and disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

All three defendants had shown contempt for the Royal Court by re-offending so soon after being sentenced.  JC and JL's conduct left the Court with no option but to impose a custodial sentence.

JL

First Indictment

1 counts of:	Malicious damage (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 2).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Being carried in a motor vehicle taken without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 6).

Age:  15.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See JC above.

Details of mitigation

Guilty pleas at earliest opportunity.

Previous convictions

15 previous convictions for dishonesty, public disorder and violence.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	6 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 6:

5 months' youth detention, concurrent to First Indictment.

Existing probation order discharged and re-sentenced for earlier affray and other offences with 4 months' youth detention on each concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 6 months' youth detention on the latest Indictments.

Total: 10 months' youth detention.

An order that JL's parents forfeit the £1,000 security for his good behaviour at his last sentence was sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

All three defendants had shown contempt for the Royal Court by re-offending so soon after being sentenced.  JC and JL's conduct left the Court with no option but to impose a custodial sentence.

SC

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Being carried in a motor vehicle taken without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 6).

Age:  15.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See JC above.

Details of mitigation

Guilty pleas at earliest opportunity.

Previous convictions

3 previous convictions for violence and dishonesty.

Conclusions:

Second Indictment

Count 6:

6 month probation order and 50 hours' community service.

Existing probation order discharged.

An order that SC's parents forfeit the £500 security for his good behaviour at his last sentence was sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

All three defendants had shown contempt for the Royal Court by re-offending so soon after being sentenced

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. D. Hoy for JC.

Advocate C. J. Swart for JL.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for SC.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendants stand to be sentenced for offences committed in June of this year, JC within days of his release from youth custody and SC and JL in breach of probation orders and community service orders imposed on the 26^th May.  On the first indictment JC and JL are to be sentenced for offences of malicious damage and having an offensive weapon.  On the second indictment JC is to be sentenced for two offences of taking a motor vehicle without consent, driving with excess alcohol whilst disqualified and without insurance.  JL and SC are to be sentenced for one count of allowing themselves to be carried in a motor vehicle taken by JC without consent.

2.        JC is 16 and he has 27 previous convictions including offences of dishonesty, taking vehicles without consent and violence.  JL is 15 and has 15 previous convictions for offences of dishonesty, including car crime, public disorder and violence.  SC is 15 and he has 3 previous convictions for offences of violence and dishonesty. 

3.        The Crown asserts that, applying the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994, the offending of JC and JL is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified and in any event they both have a history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties or of being unwilling to respond to them.  JL declines to consent to community service and JC was apparently unconcerned about his current situation and told Mr Gafoor that prison does not bother him.  He has stated a preference for a custodial sentence after which he plans to leave Jersey.  SC, by contrast, shows signs of maturing and is now making good progress at school.  In the Crown's view SC can be treated differently.  Under the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 there is a statutory limit on the sentence of youth detention that can be imposed upon JC and JL of 12 months. 

4.        We have considered, carefully, all of the mitigation that has been put forward on your behalf, the letters, some of them very moving, written on your behalf and the submissions of your counsel, but we are going to grant the conclusions of the Crown.

5.        JC your parents have tried but cannot control you.  It is to us a tragedy that someone so young has spent the best part of this year in prison, a situation which apparently you say does not bother you, and yet there are positive signs.  You have received a very good report from St Marks where you will no doubt return in due course, and perhaps it is just worth reading what they said; it was only in May of this year:-

"Here is a brief report on JC.  Since he has been a resident at St Marks JC has been of good behaviour and he has done everything that has been asked of him.  He is up on time, keeps his room tidy and does his housework when asked.  JC also is able to look after himself and is able to budget and cook for himself.  He also goes and collects his pocket money himself each Friday from Heathfield and manages his own finance.  We have no problems of JC being rude or aggressive to staff, he is an extremely polite and courteous young man and has good relations with all the staff and other residents in St Marks."

That is really encouraging and the Court, as you know, have done its best to give you chances and/or encouragement on past occasions.  But ultimately, despite your youth, we have to act to protect society and I am sure you understand that.  You are still very much supported by your parents, who have not given up on you, and we also have not given up on you.  We think that you have potential and now is the time, frankly, for you to grow up and to do something positive with your life.

6.        JL all your offending has involved excessive use of alcohol and you just do not seem to realise how detrimental drinking has been for you.  It really concerns us that at 15 you could not get to sleep without alcohol; something which, with the constructive help of Greenfields, we now understand you have overcome.  On the last occasion you were before us for affray, amongst other offences, the Court went out on a limb, as you know, to give you a chance and to avoid a custodial sentence and yet you appear to treat us with contempt by offending within days.  Frankly by refusing community service you have left us with little choice.  You also have the support of your parents.  There are encouraging reports from school and as with JC frankly it is time for you to grow up and do something sensible with your life and we think you have the potential to do so.

7.        SC we are very encouraged by the steps that you are taking and we hope and feel confident that they will continue.  You can see where the road your friends have taken leads to.  As the Crown says your challenge now is to demonstrate that you are committed to making the progress you have made since your arrest and we very much encourage you to do that.

8.        We are going to order the security given by the parents to be paid.  We are impressed with the parents who have come to Court today and have some sympathy with you, but the security is ordered for good reason, namely to ensure the good behaviour of your children.  They have not been of good behaviour and therefore the security must be paid, and to your credit you acknowledge that.

9.        JC on count 1 you are sentenced to 3 months' youth detention, on count 2; 6 months' youth detention, concurrent.  On the second indictment you are sentenced on count 1; 6 months' youth detention, on count 2; 10 months' youth detention, and on counts 3, 4 and 5; 4 months' youth detention on each count concurrent.  These sentences are to be concurrent with one another and concurrent to the sentences on the first indictment which makes a total of 10 months' youth detention.  We also have to give you warning that at the end of your sentence you may be subject to supervision.  Furthermore, in relation to counts 1, 2 and 3, of the second indictment, we disqualify you from driving for 2 years.  We are not going to make a compensation order for the reasons put forward by Counsel.

10.      JL on the first indictment, count 1; 3 months' youth detention, on count 2; 6 months' youth detention, concurrent.  On the second indictment, count 6; 6 months' youth detention, concurrent with the sentences on the first indictment.  That makes a total of 6 months' youth detention.  In relation to the orders imposed on the 26^th May, we discharge the probation order and the community service order made on that day and you now stand to be re-sentenced for those offences.  You will be sentenced as follows; 4 months' youth detention in respect of each of those offences, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 6 months' for the latest offending.  The 4 months will be served first followed by the 6 months.  Therefore the overall sentence in your case is one of 10 months' youth detention and again we must give you the warning that at the end of that period of custody you may be subject to supervision.  In relation to the security, we order Mr and Mrs L to pay, jointly and severally, the security of £1,000 within 28 days.

11.      SC we discharge the probation order imposed upon you on the 26^th May, and impose a fresh probation order of 6 months on the same conditions.  However the community service order made on the 26^th May continues in force and you must complete that community service.  We order Mr C to pay the security of £500 within 28 days.

Authorities

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