Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC230

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

15^th December 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Tibbo and Liddiard.

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:

Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 1).

Second Indictment

1 count of:

Breaking and entry and larceny (Count 1).

These offences placed the defendant in breach of previous Court Orders dated 7^th April, 2^nd July and 27^th July, 2010.

Age:  15.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

The defendant in the course of being breached for non-compliance with the Royal Court's previous non-custodial sentences imposed on three previous occasions.  Non-compliance consisted of failing to attend probation appointments, failing to undertake community service work and persistent breaches of the curfew which had been imposed as part of a Probation Order.  Non-compliance persisted despite a personal meeting with the Solicitor-General.  Prior to representation the defendant re-offended by possessing two cannabis "joints" and participating in a breaking and entry and larceny at commercial premises.  Offences committed at night at the time which placed him in breach of the curfew condition. 

The defendant was not co-operative in interview in relation to the serious offence of breaking and entry and larceny.  He only made some admissions after his fingerprints were found on stolen cigarettes and DNA found at point of entry into premises.  Sought to minimise his involvement at all times. 

The Crown considered that all three sub-paragraphs of Article 4(2) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 were applicable and that only an immediate custodial sentence was justified. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty pleas and age; still only 15.  Did not have the benefit of co-operation.  Had consistently shown an unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities provided to him by the Court on the non-custodial sentences.  Appalling criminal record. 

The Defence

Guilty plea; apologised for behaviour; had had a taste of custody on remand and now appreciated that he needed to change his lifestyle; wanted to make a new start.  Recent welfare reports suggested he was now facing up to what he had done and how he needed to change his behaviour and his general lifestyle.  Emphasised his young age. 

Previous Convictions:

8 convictions for a total of 24 offences including numerous for larceny, robbery, common assault, motoring, public order, making hoax telephone calls and supply of a controlled drug. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' youth detention.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

12 months' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.

Indictment dated 7^th April, 2010

Count 1:	2 months' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.
Count 2:	No separate penalty.

First Indictment dated 2^nd July, 2010

Count 1:

3 weeks' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.

Second Indictment dated 2^nd July, 2010

Count 1:

3 weeks' youth detention, consecutive to First Indictment dated 2nd July 2010 but concurrent to current First Indictment.

Breach of Community Service Order dated 23^rd July 2010 - has completed 10% of hours ordered: 6 week's youth detention, concurrent. 

Total:  12 months' youth detention. 

Probation and Community Service Orders to be discharged.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

S was before the Court to be sentenced for an offence of possession cannabis and an offence of breaking and entry and larceny of cigarettes with a value of £500.  By virtue of his conviction for these offences he was in breach of the Court's Orders for offences of robbery, obstruction, larceny of two cans of lager and in respect of which the defendant had previously received non-custodial sentences so far.  He also breached the terms of the Royal Court sentences imposed in April and July.  He had been given every warning to try and persuade him to get him away from his criminal behaviour.  He was told in April that the system will win.  He could beat the system.  The Court quoted from Article 4 of the Young Offenders law and it was considered that the appropriate sentence, and only sentence, was a custodial.  The Court considers the conclusions of the Crown to be correct but was minded to vary in some small detail.  The Court considered that the most serious offence was that of the robbery where the co-accused received sentences of 2 years and 1 year's imprisonment.  This was an extremely serious offence.  The Court was encouraged by the contents of the welfare report.  The Court hoped that he would take the opportunity to progress.  It was his decision and if he did not change his life, then things were likely to get worse and worse for him. 

First Indictment

Count 1:

2 weeks' youth detention.

Second Indictment

Count 1:

6 months' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.

Indictment dated 7^th April 2010

Count 1:	10 months' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.
Count 2:	No separate penalty.

First Indictment dated 2^nd July 2010

Count 1:

2 weeks' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.

Second Indictment dated 2^nd July 2010

Count 1:

2 weeks' youth detention, concurrent to current First Indictment.

Breach of Community Service Order dated 23^rd July 2010 - has completed 10% of hours ordered. 

Total:  10 months' youth detention. 

Probation and Community Service Orders to be discharged. 

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered. 

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

Advocate P. M. T. Tracey for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        S, you are before us today to be sentenced on an Indictment for possession of a controlled drug, namely cannabis, and a Second Indictment for breaking and entry and larceny of cigarettes with an estimated value of £500.  By virtue of your convictions for those offences you also come back before us for other offences of robbery, obstructing the police in the execution of their duty and the theft of two cans of lager, for which you have been given non-custodial sentences so far, and because you have breached the terms of the Orders which the Court have made, you fall to have those sentences reviewed. 

2.        Looking back at the judgments of this Court in April and July, three of them in total but two in July last year, it is obvious that you have had every single warning that could have been given to try to persuade you away from criminal activity.  And I said to you in April, if you recall, that the system was always going to win; you cannot beat the system.  It is the job of the police to ensure that the law is kept; it is the job of the prosecutors to bring cases before the Court; it is the job of the Courts to make sure that you are sentenced for the offences for which you have committed.  And the sooner you learn that the community will have its way, the better. 

3.        The Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 requires that we do not send a person to youth detention unless the Court considers that there is no other method of dealing with the person which is appropriate and three reasons are given.  The first is that a person has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them.  Just dealing with 2010 by itself it is clear that you do have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties, but of course it is worse than that, because your record shows that you have had other non-custodial penalties for several years before 2010 and have not responded to them.  In the circumstances the Court finds that Article 4(2)(a) is met and that no other way of dealing with you is appropriate on that ground.  The Court does not reach its conclusion on the basis of Article 4(2)(b) that only a custodial sentence is adequate to protect the public from serious harm, but we do think that paragraph (c) is met, namely that the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.  That is to say when we look at the offending which we are dealing with today, as a whole, it is in our view appropriate that a sentence of youth detention be imposed, and that is indeed the only sentence which, in our view, it is appropriate to impose upon you. 

4.        Broadly speaking, the Court is of the view that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are correct, but we are going to vary them in a couple of minor respects.  For possession of cannabis the sentence is 2 weeks' youth detention; for breaking and entry and larceny of the cigarettes we are going to reduce the conclusions from 12 months to 6 months and I want to tell you why.  We think the 12 months might well have been the right sentence for this offence if you had been an adult but, taking into account your guilty plea, and particularly taking into account your age and taking into account the circumstances which surround the offence, we have reached the conclusion that 6 months' youth detention is the right sentence for that particular offence and so you are sentenced on that Count on the Indictment to 6 months' youth detention.  I now go back to the matters which are outstanding.  In relation to obstructing the police in the execution of their duty we substitute for the penalty of community service a sentence of 2 weeks' youth detention; for the theft of two cans of lager, substituting the Community Service Order previously imposed, we sentence you to 2 weeks' youth detention.  Insofar as the robbery is concerned we note the Crown had previously moved for 2 months' youth detention, we do not think that even remotely comes near reflecting the seriousness of that offence.  You may remember that your co-accused in that case received 2 years and 12 months' youth detention for their part in that robbery and recognising that your part in it was on a different factual basis we nonetheless think that robbery is an extremely serious offence; we have taken into account the fact that you were 14 at the time the offence was committed and indeed the Court took that into account when you were sentenced previously; it had jurisdiction to sentence you to youth detention but decided to give you every opportunity previously and sentenced you in a different way and put you on probation originally and then subsequently you were given community service.  So you have had your opportunities and have rejected them and the Court now is going to substitute for the previous sentences imposed in relation to the robbery a sentence of 10 months' youth detention. 

5.        The Court orders that each of those sentences should be served concurrently, so the total youth detention will be 10 months and not 12 months as requested by the Crown.  And one of the things that has encouraged us to do that, and it is, I hope, going to be treated by you as a form of encouragement, is that the welfare report which has been submitted to us by your counsel shows that you have made good progress at Greenfields.  I very much hope that you will take the opportunity in the next months spent in custody to continue that good progress because at the end of the day, no-one else can make decisions for your future but you.  If you continue offending, you will find that things will just get worse and worse and worse.  I have said it to you before, the Solicitor-General said it to you in different circumstances, and it remains true.  You think about that long and hard while you are serving that sentence.  Those are the sentences which are now imposed, as I say making a total of 10 months' youth detention. 

6.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

Authorities

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

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

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

AG-v-S [2010] JRC 123.

AG-v-S [2010] JRC 137.

AG-v-CB CS GS and RR [2008] JRC 131.