Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC211

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

19^th November 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Suna Miah

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

Age:  36.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant telephoned the Drug and Alcohol Service on 12^th August, 2002 and demanded a prescription.  Refusal led to a threat to come down to the department and stab someone.  The threat was taken seriously. 

Breach of Probation/Community Service Orders:- Affray, the defendant held a large knife in the street during an argument with a person to whom he owed money. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; long history of drug abuse; had completed virtually all community service hours (60 out of 70) and Probation willing to take him back. 

Previous Convictions:

Very bad record for drugs offences including six appearances before the Royal Court. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Probation/Community Service Order:-

1 month's imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 on the Indictment.

Revocation of the Orders imposed on 12th March, 2010. 

Total:  5 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court took into account that he had served the equivalent of 4 months and 22 days on remand in custody so therefore will be released today. 

Breach of Probation/Community Service Orders

Discharge the Community Service Order and the Probation Order to continue as previously imposed. 

Total:  3 months' imprisonment, discharge Community Service Order and Probation Order to continue. 

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Miah, in March of this year for an offence of affray you were placed on Probation for 12 months and ordered to undertake 70 hours' community service; that clearly took into account time you had spent in remand on that occasion.  You have completed all of the community service except for 10 hours' and although you were disruptive on two occasions, the Probation Service is content for the Probation Order to continue.  However, you have a serious problem with drugs and because you did not like a decision of your case worker at the Alcohol and Drug Service, on 12^th of August you threatened over the telephone to come down to the department and stab someone.  Because those working at the service are aware of your previous convictions, which include assault, the person concerned took this threat seriously and was concerned for the safety of her colleagues, although it is fair to say that the director, Mr Gafoor, did not feel threatened by it, although he understood why his colleagues were. 

2.        The Crown has moved today for a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment for that offence under the Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002.  However, the maximum under the statute for that offence is 6 months' imprisonment.  You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity in this case and therefore a sentence of 4 months is, in effect, the equivalent of the statutory maximum had you pleaded not guilty.  We do not consider this to be the most serious of these offences, thereby attracting the maximum, although we have no doubt it was frightening to the person who received the call.  Whilst not in any way underestimating the fear and upset which would have been caused, we do agree with Mr Gollop that the right sentence for this offence in these circumstances is one of 3 months' imprisonment.  The complication is that you have already served the equivalent of 4 months and 22 days on remand, pending today's hearing, so, with the sentence of 3 months, that means you have served 1 month and 22 days in addition to the correct sentence.  We think in those circumstances it would be wrong to let the Community Service Order continue; we think that you have in effect been punished by the equivalent, if not more, than the outstanding 10 hours; therefore we are going to discharge the Community Service Order and release you from any obligation to carry out the remaining hours. 

3.        That leaves the question of the Probation Order.  That is very different.  A Probation Order is not a punishment; a Probation Order is an individualised sentence intended to try and help an offender not to re-offend.  We note that a continuation of the Probation Order is recommended by the Probation Service in this case.  We think that you may well be able to gain support and assistance from them in the coming months and that a continuation of the Probation Order may assist in preventing you from re-offending.  So we think it is in your best interests that the Probation Order continues.  We are not doing this as a punishment; we are doing it because we think it will assist you. 

4.        The overall conclusions of the Court are as follows:- on the Count on the Indictment you are sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, for the breach we discharge the Community Service Order and we order simply that the Probation Order should continue as previously imposed. 

Authorities

Telecommunications (Jersey) Law 2002.

Louis-v-AG [2010] JRC 170.