Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC228

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th December 2010

The Attorney General

-v-

Remus Claudiu Tarau

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

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On Sunday 17^th November, 2008, the victim returned to her home after having been out of the Island.  As she was replacing items of jewellery into her jewellery box, she noticed that other items that should have been there were missing, together with her watch and a bright blue bag that she keeps some items of jewellery in.  The missing items were not located therefore the police were accordingly notified. 

On Wednesday 19^th November, 2008, an employee of Pearce Jewellers in the Central Market was approached in the shop by a male who wished to sell a quantity of jewellery.  The male was later identified as Tarau.  Tarau was asked where he had acquired the jewellery to which he explained that he had split up with his girlfriend.  The employee was suspicious of Tarau's response and formed the opinion that the jewellery was stolen.  He therefore asked Tarau to leave the jewellery at the shop so that he could value it and consult with his father.  Tarau stated that he could not leave it as he needed to go to other jewellers to have it valued.  He then left the shop and the employee called the police to report his suspicions. 

Following the description given by the employee a search of the town then ensued and information was received that Tarau had just left another jewellery shop in King Street.  He was then seen by police to enter Letto's Jewellers on York Street.  Police officers waited outside the shop and after approximately two minutes, Tarau exited the shop and was detained by the police for searching.  He was found to be in possession of a jewellery purse contained several necklaces.  Tarau was arrested on suspicion of receiving stolen goods and cautioned to which he gave no response. 

Later that day the victim was asked to identify certain jewellery that had been recovered by the police.  She confirmed that all the recovered items were the items which had been taken from her home and no other items remained unaccounted for.  The jewellery that was taken was later valued at £10,366.66. 

On 20^th November, 2008, Tarau was interviewed.  He initially stated that the jewellery was not stolen and that he had legitimate possession of it having been given it by his ex-girlfriend in the USA in settlement of a debt.  However, when the victim's statement was put to Tarau, he apologised for wasting police time and admitted that the jewellery belonged to the victim.  He explained that approximately four weeks earlier, he had been at the victim's house babysitting her children.  He had noticed that the jewellery was in the victim's bedroom and proceeded to conceal the jewellery in his person before leaving the property later that night.  Tarau stated that he felt sorry for what he had done and recognised that it was a breach of the trust that the victim had put him in.  Further, that he had wanted to return the jewellery but was too embarrassed.  He had therefore decided to sell the jewellery in order to raise funds for his family's forthcoming visit to the Island but despite visiting three jewellers, none of them were interested in purchasing the jewellery. 

Having been presented in the Magistrate's Court on 9^th January, 2009, Tarau did not attend Court for committal.  Information was received that he had left the jurisdiction and he was not located again until October 2010.  On 5^th October, 2010, Tarau appeared before the Magistrate's Court once again and was remanded in custody.  On 19^th October, 2010, a paper committal was agreed and Tarau was also charged with contempt of Court in respect of his failure to report on 9^th January, 2009.  A guilty plea was entered and Tarau was sentenced to 6 weeks' imprisonment. 

The aggravating features of the case were that:-

1.        Tarau had breached the trust that had been put in him by the victim.

2.        The jewellery was recovered but not though any action of the defendant.  He took the jewellery and it was his intention to sell it for his own personal gain.

3.        At approximately £10,000, the value of the jewellery taken was not insignificant.  In addition, the jewellery consisted of personal items which may have a great sentimental value. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; low risk of re-offending; remorse, letters of apology had been sent to the victim; had made good use of time in custody. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Deputy Bailiff noted that as well as being valued at approximately £10,000 there was also an emotional value to it.  The theft was a breach of trust where he had been given free range of the house.  For such breach of trust cases the court policy is well settled unless there are exceptional circumstances a custodial sentence will be imposed.  In this case there were none.  Having taken into account the mitigation, remorse (although expressed late in the day), letters from various individuals and lack of previous convictions the Court sentenced as follows:-

Conclusions granted.

D. M. Cadin, Esq., Crown Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

THE deputy BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Tarau, you are here to be sentenced on one count of larceny, the theft of some jewellery.  The jewellery had a value of approximately £10,000 but it was valuable not only financially but emotionally to the victim.  The theft took place in circumstances which amounted to a breach of trust on your part because you had been allowed in with free range of the house while you were baby-sitting for them.  The Court's policy on offences of this kind is well settled and that is that where there is a breach of trust, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a custodial sentence will be imposed. 

2.        In the case that we have before us now, this was a case where the theft may itself have been opportunistic but the Court takes into account that you certainly did not feel very remorseful in the immediate aftermath because you held onto the jewellery and then tried to sell it and in our view there is nothing exceptional here and that a custodial sentence is right in principle. 

3.        Accordingly, having regard to the mitigation which has been put forward on your behalf, particularly the guilty plea, remorse which you now express and your letter of apology to the victim and taking account also of the references which have been given up and the absence of previous convictions, we take account of all those things but we think that the conclusions of the Crown are right and you are therefore sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Pallot [2010] JRC 122.

AG-v-Hilario [2010] JRC 039.

AG-v-Herivel [2005] JRC 093.

AG-v-Picot 1990/74.

R-v-Barrick (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 142.