Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC123

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

2^nd July 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

S

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

First Indictment

1 count of:

Obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty (Count 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Larceny (Count 1).

Age:  15.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Defendant spoken to earlier in the evening as to his behaviour when members of the Police Licensing Unit spoke to a group of youths drinking on the beach.  Officers subsequently attended a second location where more teenagers were on the beach making a disturbance and drinking alcohol.  The defendant once again present.  Told on a number of times to leave the area.  He remained and taunted officers and could be seen gesturing and walking up and down and clapping at the officers carrying out their duties.  Officers approached to arrest him, he ran away but was apprehended and arrested. 

Second Indictment

Whilst on bail for the above offence, defendant caught on CCTV in the company of another male in store.  Other male seen to steal four cans of lager.  The next day the same two males are seen and caught once again on CCTV and on this occasion defendant is seen to steal two cans of lager.  The offence aggravated by the fact that not only committed on bail but he appeared in Court earlier in the day for the obstruction offence. 

Breach

See AG-v-M, C and S [2010] JRC 071.  Defendant had been sentenced to a period of probation for an offence of robbery and a separate offence of larceny. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Defendant had been given a very clear warning on the last occasion by the Deputy Bailiff as to his behaviour and the future consequences.  He had been exceptionally lucky on the last occasion not to go to prison due to his age.  Obstruction offence committed within 2 weeks of his appearance before the Royal Court.  Larceny committed on bail and his fifth offence of that nature.  Showed a cavalier attitude to the Order of the Court and to the property of other persons.  Had mitigation of youth; guilty pleas; some improvement in his behaviour from the reports generally noted.  The Crown contended that a short sharp shock of a custodial sentence was warranted and under Article 4(2)(a) and (c) of the 1994 Law. 

Defence

Contended that the offences should be kept in perspective.  Large number of teenagers on the beach but only three of them arrested.  Generally he was standing around and not interfering with the actions of the police.  Accepts that he did not move away when ordered to do so.  In relation to the larceny offence no longer associates with co-accused.  Guilty plea.  Remorseful.  Beginning to show signs of maturity.  Positive reports from La Preference.  Given opportunity for first work experience.  Now old enough to do community service.  Not previously had community service and, therefore, there was an alternative to youth detention which had not as yet been tried.  Asked for another chance. 

Previous Convictions:

Six convictions for nineteen offences including robbery, assault, supply of drugs, illegal entry, malicious damage and public order. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' youth detention.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' youth detention, consecutive to Count 1 of the First Indictment.

Breach of probation Order

Count 1:	2 months youth detention, consecutive.
Count 2:	No separate penalty.

Total:  3 months' youth detention. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court quoted from Article 4(2) of the 1994 Law and also the quote of Lord Justice Dyson contained in the case of AG-v-Cameron.  S, for someone of his age had a quite appalling record.  The emphasis on rehabilitation would soon be no longer applicable.  He cannot keep coming back before the Court.  The two current offences were less serious than the offences for which he previously appeared when he had been involved in a robbery.  The Court noted that his state of mind in that he was prepared to commit offences.  He decided to steal other people's property.  He had been drinking.  He should not at his age be drinking.  He was drunk on the last occasion and it was for him to make choices.  Only he could make those choices.  He could make choices to prepare himself to get work and become a valuable member of society.  If he did not then life was going to get more and more difficult for him.  He should not try to go against society.  He had to make choices of not drinking and to move when someone in authority told him to move.  The Court was not going to send him to youth detention as there was an alternative by which he could be given another chance.  The Court acknowledged that he had some difficulties in the past but he could not carry on like he had been.  The Probation Order and curfew provision remained in place. 

Sentence:-

First Indictment

Count 1:

50 hours Community Service Order or 1 month's youth detention in default.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

50 hours' Community Service Order or 1 month's youth detention in default, concurrent to Count 1 of the First Indictment.

Breach of probation Order

No Separate penalty.

Total:  50 hours' Community Service Order or 2 months' youth detention in default. 

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Article 4(2) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offender)(Jersey) Law 1994 says this:-

"A court shall not pass a sentence of youth detention unless it considers that no other method of dealing with the person is appropriate because it appears to the court that -

(a) the person has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them;

(b) only a custodial sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from the person; or

(c) the offence or the totality of the offending is so serious that a non custodial sentence cannot be justified,

and the Court shall state in open court its reasons for imposing a sentence of youth detention and shall explain to the person that on the person's release the person may be subject to a period of supervision in accordance with Article 10. 

The rest of Article 4 contains various other provisions but there are limits there on the extent to which a person under the age of 17 can be sentenced to youth detention. 

2.        In the case of AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182, there is a citation from the decision from Dyson LJ in R-v-Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857 where he says:-

"The approach to be adopted where a defendant crosses a relevant age threshold between the date of the commission of the offence and the date of the conviction should now be clear.  The starting point is the sentence that the defendant would have been likely to receive if he had been sentenced at the date of the commission of the offence.  It has been described as "a powerful factor".  That is for the obvious reason that as Mr Emerson points out, the philosophy of restricting sentencing powers in relation to young offenders, reflects both a) society's acceptance that young offenders are less responsible for their actions and therefore less culpable than adults, and b) the recognition that in consequence, sentencing them should place greater emphasis on rehabilitation and less on retribution and deterrence than in the case of adults."

3.        S, your record for somebody of your age is quite appalling and, looking at the language of LJ Dyson:-"...society's acceptance that young offenders are less responsible for their actions and therefore less culpable..." there comes a time when that can no longer be given any credibility at all. 

4.        You cannot keep coming back before this Court to be sentenced for offences like this.  These two offences are far less serious than your previous offences but they reflect the state of mind on your part that you were prepared to commit offences.  "Somebody else's property, does not matter, I'll take it", that is what you must think or else why take those two cans of lager?  When the police tell you to move on, you should move on, there should be no question about it.  You had been drinking, you should not have been drinking. 

5.        Now I said to you last time that it is a question of choice, it is your choice because nobody else can make that choice, and it remains the position.  Nobody else can make a choice but you about whether or not you are going to grow up and become a good member of our society or face things going downhill getting worse and worse.  The way to go about becoming a decent member of society is to prepare yourself, get a job when you have finished your schooling, and hopefully then find yourself getting satisfaction from things that do not take you up against society.  If you do not do that, if you continue the way you are, life is going to get worse and worse and you have got to recognise that and make choices early on and the choice is not to drink, the choice is to move on straight away when some body in authority tells you to do that. 

6.        We are not going to sentence you to youth detention on this occasion.  We consider that there is yet another chance to take with you and we have paid special regard to what is said from Health and Social Services, the officers at La Preference Home and your child care officer.  You have had some difficulties in your life but these people are here to help you and guide you and you need to pay attention to them.  There are people to support you but you cannot carry on acting like this. 

7.        We are going to leave in place the Probation Order that was imposed for the offence of robbery on the last occasion and the curfew also remains in place, we are not disturbing that.  On the offences which you now come to be sentenced, we are going to sentence you to community service.  You will do 50 hours' Community Service, which is equivalent to 1 month's youth detention and you will do 50 hours concurrently on both of those charges, making a total of 50 hours' Community Service.  You must perform that otherwise you will be back in Court and you will be liable to be sentenced again for those offences.  Do you really understand what is being said to you today?  Nobody else can make these decisions in your life but you. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182.

R-v-Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857.

AG-v-M, C and S [2010] JRC 071.

AG-v-CB and Others [2008] JRC 131.