Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC065

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26^th March 2010

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and King.

The Attorney General

-v-

Paul Robert Hartley

Daniel McIntyre

Ryan Francis Godel

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

Paul Robert Hartley

First Indictment

6 counts of:	Larceny (Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 11 and 15).
6 counts of:	Illegal entry and larceny (Counts 4, 9, 10, 12, 18, and 19).
4 counts of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (Counts 6, 7, 14 and 16).
2 counts of:	Larceny from an unattended vehicle (Counts 13 and 17).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Hartley falls to be sentenced for eighteen offences, McIntyre for eight and Godel for eleven, all of which relate to an escalating spree of thefts between 12^th June and 16^th November, 2009.  During those five months more than £22,000 worth of property was stolen from cars, storage units, garages and houses. 

At some point over the weekend of 12^th to 14^th June, 2009, Hartley took a Hooded Villain surfboard from the roof rack of a car parked outside the owner's property in St Ouen (Count 1), and a Gul surfboard from the roof rack of another car parked in Grouville (Count 2).  On Friday 17^th July, 2009, Hartley and McIntyre stole a Magic Maris surfboard and bag from the roof rack of a car parked on Gorey coast road (Count 3).  The same night they entered the garage of a home in St Ouen and took two surfboards, their bags and a ladies wetsuit (Count 4), hiding them nearby before returning to collect them by car.  The owner of the property said that the garage door was shut when he left, but open on his return.  On Thursday 20^th August, 2009, they took three surfboards from the roof of a car parked in a residential driveway in St Martin (Count 5).  McIntyre now says the reason for these thefts was to take the boards to the south of France and hire them out as a means of making money. 

Renovation work was being carried out on a property called Rockmount, in St Martin, and at some point between 1^st September and 12^th October, 2009, Hartley and Godel gained entry by unscrewing the locks from a secure storage area in the grounds, and stole tools worth £1,625.  Between 8^th October and 17^th November, 2009, all three defendants entered a newly built home in Trinity through a window and removed two mirrors worth £430 (Count 7).  Between 1^st September and 21^st November all three were at a farm in St John, when Godel entered one of the sheds looking to steal something, although nothing was taken (Count 8).  They noted that a quad bike was in one of the other sheds and, not having a large enough vehicle to transport it, Hartley and Godel later returned with a van and removed the bike (Count 9).  When it was recovered it had been re-sprayed and had new stickers on it, in an attempt to disguise it.  All three had subsequently used the bike. 

Between Thursday 8^th and Thursday 22^nd October, 2009, all three entered a property in St Peter which was unoccupied and being used for storage by the owner, and stole a Bianchi racing bicycle, briefcase  and iPod (Count 10).  The owner states that a rear door was open, and while he was sure it had been secure when he left, there was no sign of it having been forced.  Hartley and Godel had seen a mountain bicycle advertised on an Island website and had arranged to go and see it.  Between Friday 9^th and Saturday 10^th October, 2009, before they were due to go to view it, they visited the property in St Peter and Hartley removed it from the garden (Count 11).  Godel denies taking the bicycle.  As it was recovered from him he admits to handling stolen property, which is the sole count on the Indictment he faces alone.  Hartley removed the front forks of the bicycle to replace those on his own bicycle, and Godel then took possession of the bike, and replaced the pedals and grips. 

On Saturday 24^th October, 2009, Hartley and McIntyre entered a property in St Brelade which was being refurbished and stole a flat screen television (Count 12).  The doors to the property had been locked and entry is believed to have been through a window.  The same weekend McIntyre used a hammer to smash the window  of a VW Golf parked at La Porte, St Ouen, and together with Hartley stole an iPod Touch, sunglasses, an MP3 player and a car stereo (Count 13).  The following Wednesday 28^th October, 2009, Hartley and Godel broke into a house in St Clement through an upstairs window while the owners were on holiday and the property was being refurbished, and stole a considerable number of items, including two televisions, computer games and consoles (Count 14).  Two days later, on Friday 30^th October, 2009, they stole a smoke machine and glow sticks from a marquee in Grouville (Count 15).  The same night they broke into a property in St Brelade.  There were lights on but no-one was at home.  They knocked on the front door, and when there was no reply went to a side door, knocked, and when there was no reply tried the door which they say was unlocked.  The owners were away for the weekend.  They stole cameras, a laptop computer, watches and jewellery (Count 16).  They then used keys found inside the property to access two cars parked at the property and stole an iPod and two car adaptors (Count 17).  In interview Hartley said that he had seen a baby monitor in the house, and that if they had disturbed the mother of the baby she would have been "terrified". 

On Wednesday 11^th October, 2009, they entered a property in Les Quennevais Park.  Godel was working on the house, which belonged to his then employer's son.  The work was being carried out as a surprise, as the son was away on honeymoon at the time.  Godel took a garage fob from a work van to gain access, and together with Hartley removed goods worth up to £8,000, including wedding presents which were still in their wrapping paper. 

The final charge relates to all three defendants entering a property in St Ouen on Monday 16^th November, 2009, and stealing a flat screen television, computer laptop and torches (Count 19).  The owner believed the property to be secured, but could find no evidence of forced entry.  In interview Hartley said that he and Godel had tried to get in through a balcony window, while McIntyre managed to get in via a ground floor entrance. 

At around this time Police were investigating items being offered for sale on eBay which were suspected to have been stolen.  On Tuesday 17^th November, 2009, the day after the last theft, officers attended at Hartley's home address, and recovered a large number of items, some in his room in plain sight, although a gold watch was beneath a floorboard, and some in vehicles he owned.  McIntyre and Godel were arrested a few days later.  All were keen to minimise their involvement during numerous interviews, 22 between the three defendants, but eventually made admissions and were co-operative. 

Godel found someone who wanted to buy one of the stolen televisions, and he and Hartley took it to a property but could not get it to work.  They intended to return and fix it, and were going to charge £600 for it, but in the meantime the buyer suspected it was stolen and told them in no uncertain terms to collect it.  Hartley and Godel also went to two jewellery shops in St Helier to see if they could get a price for the stolen watches (Count 16) and they also went to London, taking one of the watches Godel had kept, and one Hartley had kept, to try and get them valued.  The Breitling watch had been put up for auction on eBay by Hartley, but he cancelled this after the police had searched his house.  An independent witness also states that on meeting Hartley and Godel in an electrics shop, Hartley offered to sell them a television set, but they did not take him up on his offer. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, youth, remorseful, offences out of character, good work records.

Previous Convictions:

Minor previous convictions.

Conclusions:

First indictment

Count 1:	2 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order hearing to be adjourned to a later date. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	70 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	70 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 months' imprisonment.
Count 4:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	90 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 5 months' imprisonment.
Count 6:	240 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment.
Count 7:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.
Count 9:	240 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 18 months' imprisonment.
Count 10:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.
Count 11:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 12:	312 Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.
Count 13:	120 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 14:	348 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 3 months' imprisonment.
Count 15:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 16:	348 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 17:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 18:	384 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 19:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.

Total:  384 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, plus a 12 month Probation Order.

Compensation Order hearing adjourned to a later date, suggested Hartley to lodge £1,000 with the Viscount. 

Daniel McIntyre

First Indictment

2 counts of:	Larceny (Counts 3 and 5,).
4 counts of:	Illegal entry and larceny (Counts 4, 10, 12, and 19).
1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (Count 7).
1 count of:	Larceny from an unattended vehicle (Count 13).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hartley above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Hartley above.

Previous Convictions:

Minor previous convictions.

Conclusions:

First indictment

Count 3:	2 months' imprisonment.
Count 4:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	2 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order hearing to be adjourned to a later date. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 3:	70 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 months' imprisonment.
Count 4:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' imprisonment.
Count 5:	90 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 3 months' imprisonment.
Count 7:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.
Count 10:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.
Count 12:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.
Count 13:	120 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 19:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment.

Total:  312 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment. 

Compensation Order hearing adjourned to a later date, suggested McIntyre to lodge £1,500 with the Viscount. 

Ryan Francis Godel

First Indictment

4 counts of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (Counts 6, 7, 14 and 16).
1 count of:	Illegal entry with intent (Count 8).
4 counts of:	Illegal entry and larceny (Counts 9, 10, 18 and 19).
1 count of:	Larceny (Count 15).
1 count of:	Larceny from an unattended vehicle (Count 17).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Handling stolen goods (Count 1).

Age:  20

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Hartley above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Hartley above.

Previous Convictions:

Minor previous convictions.

Conclusions:

First indictment

Count 6:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 7:	2 years' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 8:	18 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 9:	18 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 10:	2 years' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 14:	2 years' and 6 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 15:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 16:	2 years' and 6 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 17:	4 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 18:	3 years' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 19:	2 years' and 6 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Second indictment

Count 1:

4 months' youth detention, concurrent to Count 6 of the First Indictment.

Total:  3 years' youth detention.

Compensation Order hearing to be adjourned to a later date. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 6:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 18 months' youth detention.
Count 7:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention.
Count 8:	240 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 18 months' youth detention.
Count 9:	240 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 18 months' youth detention.
Count 10:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention.
Count 14:	348 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 3 months' youth detention.
Count 15:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' youth detention.
Count 16:	348 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 3 months' youth detention.
Count 17:	100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 4 months' youth detention.
Count 18:	348 hours' Community Service order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' and 3 months' youth detention.
Count 19:	312 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

100 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent to Count 6 of the First Indictment, equivalent to 4 months' youth detention.

Total:  348 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' and 3 months' youth detention. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate S. A. Pearmain for the Hartley.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for McIntyre.

Advocate J. M. Grace for Godel.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        So often when offences like this are committed by youngsters they come from unsettled backgrounds, they have often developed a drug habit and they have poor work records.  None of this applies to you.  You have all come from supportive and settled family backgrounds, none of you appears to have a problem with drink or drugs and you all have good work records; indeed you were all earning and working at the time you committed this spree of offences; and you only have minor previous convictions which we ignore.  Despite this, the three of you engaged, to a greater or lesser extent, in this spree of offending, 19 offences of larceny or breaking and entry or illegal entry.  We emphasise that each of you were involved in different offences but nevertheless the total amount involved was over £22,000 and some £2,500 worth is still unaccounted for.  Count 18 in particular was a very mean offence and it has clearly caused great distress to the young couple whose wedding presents, and other things, you took.  You have disgraced yourselves and you have let down your families. 

2.        The Crown has moved for substantial prison sentences and you deserve to go to prison.  As you can tell from the time we have taken, we have had to consider this very carefully.  In fact we have decided that you will not go to prison but you have come within an inch of it.  Now, we do agree that there is exceptional mitigation in this case.  You have all pleaded guilty and to a substantial extent written your own Indictments.  Most importantly, we are satisfied that you really are remorseful; we are satisfied of that from what we have read and also from our observing your demeanour whilst here in Court.  We hope and believe that you really have appreciated that you have done wrong.  We accept that what you have done is wholly out of character.  Each of you has produced voluminous references from a wide variety of friends, colleagues and relatives, which show that there are very good sides to all three of you.  You have disappointed them all so much by what you have done.  You have good work records, you are young people, your future lies ahead of you and you certainly should feel that you have let everyone around you down.  But ultimately, we hope and believe that you have learned your lesson, and that is why we are going to give you a chance.  We hope and believe that you will not re-offend and we think that in those circumstances the best way for you to repay society is to carry out a very considerable amount of community service rather than go to prison.  But this will not be an easy option, as you will hear in a moment.  The periods of community service are substantial to match the substantial prison sentences that were asked for.  You will be devoting every weekend for the foreseeable future to doing work to help other people, rather than steal things from their houses.

3.        Hartley, we think the correct overall sentence for you would have been 2½ years' imprisonment rather than the 3 years moved for by the Crown, and we therefore are going to impose a total of 384 hours' community service which is the equivalent of that and we are also going to impose a Probation Order as requested.

4.        Godel, we think that you were the next most responsible but we do think you were less responsible than Hartley so we have adjusted the Crown's conclusions slightly.  We think the total sentence for you would have been 2 years' and 3 months' youth detention and therefore the total community service is going to be 348 hours. 

5.        McIntyre, we think 2 years' imprisonment and a total of 312 hours' community service is appropriate. 

6.        I am now going to have to go through each offence but that is the overall sentence and before I come to the hours let me just say this.  You have been extremely fortunate all of you, but you must understand the position you are in.  If you do not turn up for community service or if you  skive when you are on it and do not behave properly, or in the case of a probation order, if you do not do exactly what the probation officer tells you, then you will be brought back here and if you are brought back, I think you know what is going to happen; we will then activate the prison sentence.  So it is entirely up to you, you have been given a very fortunate chance.  If you re-offend or if you do not comply with the Probation Order or community service, you will be back here and then there can be no alternative but to send you to prison. 

7.        Hartley, Count 1; 70 hours' community service, Count 2; 70 hours' community service, Count 3; 70 hours' community service, Count 4; 100 hours' community service, Count 5; 90 hours' community service, Count 6; 240 hours' community service, Count 7; 312 hours' community service, Count 9; 240 hours' community service, Count 10; 312 hours' community service, Count 11; 100 hours' community service, Count 12; 312 hours' community service, Count 13; 120 hours' community service, Count 14; 348 hours' community service, Count 15; 100 hours' community service, Count 16; 348 hours' community service, Count 17; 100 hours' community service, Count 18; 384 hours' community service, Count 19; 312 hours' community service.  All of those concurrent, therefore it is 384 hours in total and, as we say, is the equivalent to 2½ years imprisonment and you are also placed on probation for 12 months. 

8.        McIntyre, Count 3; 70 hours' community service, Count 4; 100 hours' community service, Count 5; 90 hours' community service, Count 7; 312 hours' community service, Count 10; 312 hours' community service, Count 12; 312 hours' community service, Count 13; 120 hours' community service, Count 19; 312 hours' community service, all to run concurrently so that is 312 hours' in total, an equivalent to 2 years' imprisonment. 

9.        Godel, on the First Indictment: Count 6; 240 hours' community service, Count 7; 312 hours' community service, Count 8; 240 hours' community service, Count 9; 240 hours' community service, Count 10; 312 hours' community service, Count 14; 348 hours' community service, Count 15; 100 hours' community service, Count 16; 348 hours' community service, Count 17; 100 hours' community service, Count 18; 348 hours' community service, Count 19; 312 hours' community service, and on the Second Indictment: Count 1; 100 hours' community service, that makes a total of 348 hours' community service because they are all concurrent and the equivalent to 2 years' and 3 months' youth detention. 

10.      Now we shall add this, we mentioned the question of Compensation Orders; you have caused loss to other people, much has been recovered but some has not.  Two of you have substantial savings and we see no reason why you should be entitled to keep these savings.  These savings should be given to those whom you have deprived of their goods and whom you have caused loss to.  So we are going to direct that there be an adjourned hearing for the Compensation Orders; the Crown must bring it back with reasonable despatch and we would suggest, although we don't order it, that Hartley with £1,000 and McIntyre with £1,500, might like to consider paying this to the Viscount now so that it can sit there ready to be allocated when a Compensation Order comes.  We see no reason why you should keep your money when other people are out of theirs.  We hope that we do not see you again. 

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

AG-v-Kean [2010] JRC 004.

AG-v-Fernandes and Mendes [2008] JRC 066.

AG-v-Rawlinson [2008] JRC132.

AG-v-Soares and Aguiar [2008] JRC 015.

AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218.