Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC032B

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

4^th February 2011

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Nicolle.

The Attorney General

-v-

Y

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

First Indictment

1 count of:	Abstracting electricity (Count 1).
1 count of:	Tampering with a motor vehicle (Count 2).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 (Count 3).
3 counts of:	Larceny (Counts 4, 7 and 8).
1 count of:	Receiving stolen property (Count 5).
1 count of:	Breaking and entering and larceny (Count 6).

Second Indictment

2 counts of:

Neglecting a child, contrary to Article 35 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 (Counts 1 and 2).

Age:  28. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Abstracting electricity - the defendant attached a cable to the landlord's supply in the communal hallway of his flat, leaving wires dangerously exposed.  When arrested the defendant claimed he had attached the cable the previous night, but admitted that he had previously extracted electricity in the same way.

Tampering with a motor vehicle - on 6^th July, 2010, following reports of a man trying the handles of parked cars in Providence Street, the police found the defendant sitting in a red Peugeot.  He claimed he only wanted to have a look around.

Possession of cannabis - on arrest for tampering with the above vehicle the defendant was found to have 184mg of cannabis in his jacket pocket.

Larceny - on 7^th July, 2010, the defendant was caught on CCTV stealing two half litre bottles of vodka from the Co-op Grand Marché.

Receiving stolen property - also on 7^th July, 2010, the defendant entered Pearce the Jewellers and offered to sell the proprietor items of jewellery worth £426, which had previously been stolen earlier that day from Le Lai's Jewellers and which still had the original stock tags attached.  When arrested he maintained that the items belonged to him.

Breaking and entering - on 9^th July, 2010, the defendant broke into the home of an 81 year old man at night whilst the occupant was in bed asleep.  The victim woke and saw torchlight and it was clear the defendant had been in his bedroom.  The only items stolen were two bottles of wine worth approximately £8.  The defendant knew that the house was occupied by an elderly man living alone, having been there before when working as a carpet cleaner, and had targeted it for this reason.

Larceny - on 18^th July, 2010, the defendant was caught on CCTV stealing a litre of vodka from the Co-op Locale in Charing Cross.

Larceny - the following day the defendant was filmed stealing a further litre of vodka from the same shop.

Second Indictment

Neglect - the defendant was jointly responsible for the care of his wife's two children from a previous relationship (Count 1 - a boy aged 7 and Count 2 - a girl aged 6).  When police visited the family flat in January 2010 they found it in an appalling state, filled with rubbish and very dirty.  The children slept on damaged mattresses without any bedding and their pillows were filthy.  The floor of their bedroom was littered with mouldy food scraps.  The kitchen was messy, with unwashed dishes and laundry piled up.  The oven was very dirty and there were mouldy food spills in the fridge.  The floor was littered with cat faeces.  A large kitchen knife was on the coffee table within easy reach of the children and a window had been forced beyond the safety stops which put the children at risk of falling.

The defendant was assessed as being at high risk of re-offending.  A risk of harm was identified in relation to any child for which he had responsibility.

Breach of Community Service

The defendant had previously made abusive and threatening phone calls to the family of the headmaster of his step-children's school.  He was sentenced by the Magistrate to 110 hours' community service.  He breached this order by re-offending and by non-compliance.  He had only completed 30 hours' community service.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  The defendant had made some progress on remand in the structured environment of the prison.

Previous Convictions:

Twelve convictions for 75 offences.  52 of these are dishonesty offences, including three counts of breaking and entering and one count of illegal entry.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	£250 fine or 5 days' imprisonment in default, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of community Service Order

3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment. 

Total:  3 years' and 9 months' imprisonment plus £250 fine. 

The Crown indicated that it would normally move that the sentences for the neglect offences run consecutively to the other offences.  However, having regard to totality, the Crown moved that the sentences on both Indictments be served concurrently.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	£250 fine or 5 days' imprisonment in default, concurrent.
Count 3:	1 week's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	3½ years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.

Second indictment

Count 1:	3 month's imprisonment, consecutive to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Community Service Order

3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to all counts on both Indictments and discharge previous Community Service Order and Probation Order. 

Total:  4 years' imprisonment plus fine of £250.

The neglect charges are sufficiently serious to warrant a consecutive sentence.

Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Y, you are before the Court for a number of offences of dishonesty and also for neglect of your step-children.  The most serious dishonesty offence is the breaking and entering of a house at night which was occupied by an elderly man living alone.  The Court has repeatedly said that burglary of residential houses, particularly at night, is to be treated seriously, not least because of the feelings of fear and insecurity which such offences can cause in those whose lives are disturbed in that way. 

2.        You have an appalling record and you are also, by these offences, in breach of a Probation Order and a Community Service Order, and it is quite clear from the reports that you have not taken advantage of the assistance which Probation have been able to offer. 

3.        You are said to be at high risk of re-offending and we are quite satisfied that there is no alternative to prison.  Until you deal with your drink and drug problem the outlook is bleak and we hope very much that you will address these problems whilst you are in prison, take advantage of the facilities there so that when you come out you can begin to try and turn your life around, because unless you do, sadly you will find yourself going back to prison over and over again and I am sure you do not want that to be the end result. 

4.        In mitigation Miss Fogarty has pointed out your guilty plea which we take note of, your cooperation on some of the offences, and the contents of the background report.  She has also referred to the delay in the charge in relation to neglect; the police found you in the flat with the children on the 26^th January, all the evidence was available then and yet you were not charged until 23^rd November.  That was a completely unacceptable delay; we do not know the reason for it but it is hard to think of any justification for it.  People are entitled to be investigated and charged promptly.  Clearly in some cases involving fraud, then there great complexities but there was none that we can see in this case.  Miss Fogarty has argued that we should therefore take that into account and endorse the Crown's conclusions that the neglect charges should be concurrent.  But in this particular case we do not think the delay has caused any prejudice; you have committed all these other offences which have resulted in your being here and the delay caused to these proceedings by the delay in charging the neglect offences is very minor. 

5.        Furthermore, in our judgment it is outweighed by the importance of ensuring that different offences are indeed dealt with consecutively to make sure that they are properly punished.  In our judgment, to make the neglect offences concurrent would be to betray that principle.  We think therefore that the neglect offences need to be made consecutive. 

6.        The sentence of the Court is as follows:- on Count 1 of the Second Indictment; 3 months' imprisonment and on Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent on the basis we think that 3 months' imprisonment is correct for the neglect offences.  On the First Indictment we grant the conclusions of the Crown that is 1 month's imprisonment on Count 1, Count 2; £250 or 5 days' imprisonment in default, concurrent, Count 3; 1 week's imprisonment, Count 4; 1 month's  imprisonment, Count 5; 3 months' imprisonment, Count 6; 3½ years' imprisonment, Count 7; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 8; 1 month's imprisonment, all of those to be concurrent but to be consecutive to the charges on the First Indictment.  In relation to the offence for which you are in breach of probation and breach of community service, we impose a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment, that to be consecutive to the sentences on the Indictments.  That makes a total of 4 years' imprisonment. 

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

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Sentencing Guidelines Council - Overarching Principles: Assaults on children and cruelty to a child.

Wylie v AG [2002] JLR N6

Wylie v AG 2002/13.

R v Webbe [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22.

AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR N14a.

AG v Da Silva 1997/218.

R v Brewster and Others (1998) 1 Cr App R (S) 181.

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.

R v Hodkinson (1980) 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 331.