Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2011]JRC106

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

3^rd June 2011

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Fisher and Nicolle.

The Attorney General

-v-

Barry John Picot

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

First Indictment

1 count of:

Being disorderly on licensed premises, contrary to Article 83 of the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 (Count 1).

Second Indictment

2 counts of:	Larceny (Counts 1 and 2).
1 count of:	Attempting to pervert the course of justice (Count 3).

Third Indictment

1 count of:	Driving whilst disqualified, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Failing to stop and report an accident, contrary to Article 52(1)(a) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Failing to provide a specimen for analysis, contrary to Article 30(1)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4).

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

Count 1:

At about 9:15pm on Friday 10^th September, 2010, two police officers arrived at St James' Wine Bar.  The defendant was climbing the stairs with another man.  A member of the private function approached the door staff and told them that the defendant and the other man were not invited and that he wanted them to leave.  The door staff accordingly asked the defendant and his companion to leave.  The defendant began to shout and swear at the officers and the door staff.  The officers took hold of the defendant's arms in order to remove him from the premises but he resisted, attempting to strike out.  He was restrained face down on the floor and handcuffed.  He continued to swear loudly and was told to keep his language under control as there were children present. 

Second Indictment

Count 1:

Three days later at 12:30pm on Monday 13^th September, 2010, a security officer at the Co-op Grande Marché noticed the defendant in the store.  He was with a teenage girl and boy, both of whom remain unidentified.  The defendant was seen to remove two bottles of Smirnoff vodka from the shelves.  The boy gave the defendant a bag, which the girl helped him open.  The defendant placed both bottles inside the bag then gave the bag to the girl before walking out of the shop. 

The boy and girl left shortly afterwards and were followed by the security officer who asked them to return to the store.  The security officer managed to snatch the bag from the girl before she and the boy ran off.  The defendant was arrested the following day.  He was interviewed under caution and identified himself as the man who took the bottles from the shelf.  He eventually admitted that they would not have paid for the vodka. 

Counts 2 and 3:

At 1:15pm on 1^st November, 2010, the defendant entered Nigel Pearce Jewellers and offered to sell an emerald and diamond eternity ring and a silver heart pendant necklace to the owner, who knows the defendant and recognised the ring as belonging to the defendant's sister.  The defendant offered to sell both items for £30, saying that he had been offered the same sum by a different jeweller.  Mr Pearce refused to buy the items and contacted Ms Picot who said that she was away and had left her jewellery in her flat.  Ms Picot later received a call from the defendant who told her that Neil Taylor, who had until recently been in a relationship with her, had sold the jewellery to him for £20. 

On her return from Wales Ms Picot noticed that further items were taken from her flat.  Ms Picot's three year old daughter's loose change collection had been taken, along with a hoodie, a bottle of eau de toilette, a Playstation 2 and games, some CD's, two pairs of trousers and a jacket. 

The defendant was arrested on 1^st November, 2010.  In reply to the caution he asked "For what?" On being told that a complaint had been made regarding missing jewellery he said "You won't find it, I have got it on me".  The defendant was searched and a ring and pendant were found.  He was interviewed under caution.  He claimed that he had purchased the jewellery from Mr Taylor for £30.  He claimed that he was unaware that the jewellery was stolen.  Accordingly Mr Taylor was arrested as 11:20pm the same day and spent the night in custody. He was interviewed the following day and said that he had last seen the defendant several months previously and denied selling him the jewellery or taking it from Ms Picot's home. 

The defendant was re-interviewed.  When challenged with Mr Taylor's version of events he initially stood by his story, but eventually admitted that he had been lying.  He told the officers that he had been to Ms Picot's house to collect some clothes, had found the ring and necklace in a pocket and as he was annoyed with his sister had decided to sell them. 

Third Indictment

On 10th November, 2010, the defendant bought a 1990 Ford Fiesta for £40.  On 16^th November, 2010, he invited two female friends, aged 15 and 16, to go for a drive.  He picked them up at some time between 10pm and 11pm.  After driving to various locations one of the girls asked the defendant to take her home, but the defendant instead drove through the back lanes towards St Martin.  It was dark and the roads were narrow and wet.  One of the girls looked at the speedometer and said that at times the defendant was driving at 80-90 mph.  In Rue St Julien the car came to a sudden stop and began to spin.  One girl passed out.  The other saw the window smash.  When the car came to a stop she saw the defendant pick up a bottle of vodka and leave the car.  One of the girls had a cut to her head.  The car was smoking and they had to climb over the driver's seat to get out. 

The girls walked down the lane until they came to a house.  They knocked and whilst they were waiting for an answer one of them fainted.  When the residents opened the door they called an ambulance.  The girls were taken to hospital and spent the night under observation.  One of them underwent an MRI the next day.  Neither were seriously hurt. 

An officer attending the scene recognised the defendant walking from Le Route de la Hougue Bie.  As the officer pulled the car up alongside the defendant he ran away before being caught in the grounds of La Hougue Bie.  The defendant made no reply to the caution and the officer noticed him throw a vodka bottle to the ground, the defendant smelled heavily of intoxicating liquor, that his eyes were glazed and that he appeared to be drunk.  He was assessed by the Force Medical Examiner as being moderately impaired by drink or drugs.  He was asked to supply a sample of blood for analysis, which he refused to do.  Following further enquiries the defendant was further arrested on suspicion of driving whilst disqualified.  He was cautioned and replied "I have a provisional which has just run out". 

The defendant was interviewed and admitted being the driver of the car.  He said that he had bought it late in the afternoon of 10^th November, 2010, and had driven it knowing that he had no insurance and that this was an offence.  He admitted that he was aware his provisional license had expired. That he had no "L" plates on that vehicle and that he was not accompanied by a licensed driver.  He claimed not to realise that the Magistrate's Court disqualification lasted until he had passed his test. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; difficult background. 

Previous Convictions:

Appalling record of 20 convictions for 164 offences.  These include 29 dishonesty offences, and multiple motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

1 week's imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	1 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1 of the First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2.

Third Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment plus 5 years' disqualification from driving, consecutive to the First and Second Indictments.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.

Total:  2 years' imprisonment plus 5 years' disqualification from driving. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:

1 week's imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	1 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent to Count 1.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 2.

Third Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment plus 18 months' disqualification from driving, consecutive to the First and Second indictments.
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment plus 18 months' disqualification from driving. 

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on three different Indictments.  You have been in this Court and in other courts many times before.  You face a number of difficulties and you have had, in your lifetime so far, many things which have not gone well for you.  That is true of a lot of people and they still manage to live decent lives in the community. 

2.        The offence of driving whilst disqualified is an important and serious offence because you are flouting the orders of the Court by doing so; when the Court says you are disqualified from holding a licence that is a order which you must obey and when you do not do it then you are going to get a serious penalty because you are disregarding the Court's orders.  Driving whilst disqualified from holding a licence, particularly if you have never had one, also makes you a risk to members of the public, as you were on this occasion, and it is made worse when you do not have insurance.  These things are all linked together. 

3.        The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice is a very serious offence.  There is no limit in theory to the imprisonment term that can be imposed for that offence.  This particular offence that you committed is not the worst form of attempting to pervert the course of justice but, if you do not think about yourself for a moment but think about Mr Taylor, it was directly down to you that he was taken into custody and held overnight and not released until midday the following day - a time when he will not have known what was going to happen to him; will not have understood why his liberty was being taken away from him, and that is very serious.  And had he not had the alibis that he did have, then you might have succeeded in passing on the blame to him for the offences which you committed.  That is mean and unacceptable.  If you did not understand it before I hope you do understand it now; it is completely unacceptable. 

4.        The Court has taken into account the mitigation which is available to you; your guilty plea; all the personal circumstances which are set out in the background reports before the Court, and we have particularly looked at the letters of remorse which you have written to us.  Those letters seem to make it our responsibility for you to change your life.  But it is not our responsibility; it is your responsibility and nobody else's.  We are going to impose a prison sentence and when you are serving that sentence you must think about how you can make things better.  Because if you do not you will be back in Court and throughout your life you will get more prison sentences imposed.  It is not inevitable.  You can do it, you can improve your life and you will get help in prison to do so, and we really urge you to take advantage of that help. 

5.        You have to be sentenced for what you have done and we are going to follow, with one exception, the conclusions of the Crown.  Accordingly on the First Indictment on Count 1 you are sentenced to 1 week's imprisonment.  On Count 1 of the Second Indictment; 1 month's imprisonment, on Count 2 on that Indictment, 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 3 we do not think 6 months is sufficient and we are increasing that to 12 months' imprisonment, and it will be consecutive to Count 2; as I have said, perverting the course of justice is an extremely serious offence.  On the Third Indictment, driving whilst disqualified, you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive, on Count 3; 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, on Count 4; 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and the total of imprisonment is therefore 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

6.        The Court's orders will be obeyed and you will learn that, otherwise things will just get worse.  Now when I said a moment ago it is up to you to make a difference, we do note that many of the offences are driving offences, and for that reason we are going to give you one chance.  We are not going to impose disqualification for the period the Crown has asked for; you will be disqualified from driving for 18 months' and that means that when you come out of prison you will be able to get a provisional licence and take a test and begin to put your driving experiences within the law.  You must do that and if you do that, that gives you a chance of not coming back to this Court again.  I particularly want you to understand the Court's orders will be obeyed. 

Authorities

Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948.

Sweet and Maxwell Current Sentencing Practice.

AG-v-Lenton and Fannon [1992] JLR N10a.

AG-v-Tucker [2003] JRC 119.

AG-v-Kilgour [2006] JRC 028.

AG-v-RP and Others [2009] JRC 241.

AG-v-Pagett 1984 JJ 57.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077.

Power-v-AG [2000] JLR 53.

AG-v-Picot [2008] JRC 158.

R-v-Tunney [2006] EWCA Crim 2066.

R-v-Beeton [2008] EWCA Crim 1421.

R-v-Beeton [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 46.