Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - breaking and entry and larceny.

[2012]JRC087

Royal Court

(Samedi)

27 April 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Piotr Waclaw Chabros

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court following conviction at Assize Trial on 1^st March, 2012, on the following charges:-

Age:  32. 

Plea: Not guilty.

Details of Offence:

Count 1: Between 28^th December and 29^th December, 2008, the defendant criminally broke and entered the premises known as Motor Mall, in the parish of St Helier, and stole £18,593 in cash, the property of Jacksons (C.I.) Limited. 

No one was arrested at the time.  The crime was unsolved until further evidence came to light.  Plainly this was an "inside job" - the burglar knew exactly where the key for the safe was and was likely to be a current or former employee. 

Count 2: On 5^th May, 2009, the defendant criminally broke and entered the premises known as Motor Mall, in the parish of St Helier, and stole £250 in cash, the property of Jacksons (C.I.) Limited. 

Count 3: On 5^th May, 2009, the defendant criminally broke and entered the premises known as Motor Mall, in the parish of St Helier, and attempted to steal £24,012.26 in cash, the property of Jacksons (C.I.) Limited. 

On the second occasion, on 5^th May, 2009, the defendant successfully stole £250 in cash from the same premises and very nearly succeeded in stealing a further £24,012.26 in cash from a safe.  The intruder was seen on CCTV.  On both occasions the defendant carefully planned the offences and as a result left no forensic evidence. 

The defendant lied in every interview with the police.  None of the stolen monies were recovered.  The defendant left the Island during the middle of the police investigation and returned to the Island many months later.  The defendant maintained his not guilty pleas to trial.  The trial took four days from the 27^th February to the 1^st Match, 2012.

The passage of time meant that this was a difficult trial for the witnesses who were cross-examined on events that took place some three years ago.  The Court heard evidence from numerous staff members as to the defendant's characteristic walk being similar to the person seen on the CCTV.  The Court heard evidence from experts on gait analysis, which was relied on by both the Crown and Defence. 

On 1^st March, 2012, the jury found the defendant guilty on each count of the indictment.  (The jury were not unanimous in relation to Count 1 but were unanimous on Counts 2 and 3). 

The defendant showed no remorse for his actions until the day of sentencing when he handed a letter to the Court, fully admitting the offences.  The Crown had not had sight of this letter prior to sentencing. 

Details of Mitigation:

The defendant had little mitigation available.  He did not have the benefit of credit for plea and was convicted following a four day trial.  These were carefully planned offences and nearly £20,000 was stolen, none of which has been recovered.  Extensive damage was caused to the safe on the second occasion, which necessitated its replacement. 

The principal mitigation available to the defendant was his relative good character.  He had no convictions for dishonesty and one conviction for a motoring offence, albeit for driving with excess alcohol.  The defendant did not have the benefit of youth (32) and his offending was motivated by greed.  The Court took into account character references and the letter of remorse, provided on the day of sentencing, where the defendant finally accepted responsibility for the offences. 

Previous Convictions:

None relevant.

Conclusions:

Total: 3 years' imprisonment. 

Recommendation for Deportation Order sought.  

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court made mention that had the defendant not admitted his guilt at sentencing, the Crown's conclusions would have been granted in full. 

The Court declined to make a recommendation for deportation.  The Court considered that these were isolated incidents and out of character.  The defendant was not deemed to be a risk to the Island and on release would have a chance to prove that he could be an asset to the community. 

Total: 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 

R. MacRae, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You were convicted before the Jury of two counts of breaking and entering commercial premises and larceny, and one count of attempted breaking and entering and larceny. 

2.        You continued to maintain your innocence until this morning and certainly that has the consequence that you have no mitigation for a guilty plea which is something the Court always takes into account when imposing sentence.  The fact that you have expressed your remorse and have made a full admission of the offences through your counsel this morning does mean that we can now accept that you have belatedly expressed some remorse and that is a factor which the Court can take into account. 

3.        The amount involved was just under £19,000 and you were unsuccessful in your attempts to steal some £24,000.  There was an element of breach of trust in that you had previously been employed at those premises and you must have used the information gained from that in these offences.  Furthermore because it was clearly an "inside job" your actions brought your former colleagues at the premises under suspicion themselves and that had an adverse effect certainly. 

4.        The facts of the offences of which you are convicted show that you have committed them on two occasions, the second and third counts reflecting that second occasion.  The offences are aggravated by the fact that you went back.  The Court accepts that at the time you committed the first offence you were at a bad time in your life and is prepared to accept that your judgement at that time was affected as a result.  On the second occasion there was clearly a significant element of planning and you succumbed to temptation and to greed.  Extensive damage was caused to the premises, to the safe which had to be replaced and none of the stolen property has been recovered. 

5.        You do not have any mitigation arising from your age because you are 32.  But you do have the mitigation of appearing before us as a man with no previous convictions, except driving with excess alcohol, and we treat you therefore as a man of good character and you are entitled to credit for that.  We have also looked carefully at the references which have been supplied to us, and of course listened to everything which Mr Baglin has said on your behalf. 

6.        If it had been the position that you maintained your innocence during this morning's hearing the Court would have thought the Crown's conclusions correct, but in the light of the remorse which you have expressed this morning through your counsel we are going to reduce them slightly. 

7.        Therefore on Count 1; 18 months' imprisonment, Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive but concurrent with Count 3, Count 3; 15 months' imprisonment, consecutive, making a total of 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment.

8.        We have then gone on to consider the question of the recommendation for deportation.  Those who are not our nationals are guests in our Island and should not abuse our hospitality.  It has been a very close call for the Court as to whether or not the first part of the Nazari test, which we are required to apply, is satisfied, that is to say whether your continued presence in the Island is or is not detrimental.  On balance we have decided to give you a chance in that respect.  We have particularly taken into account your expression of remorse, your acceptance of your guilt and that, in our view, makes you less of a risk of future offending and therefore less of a risk to the community in the future.  But we should give you that warning that it has been a very close call indeed and if you were to commit any further offences we are quite sure that a Court would look very closely at making a deportation order.  We decline to make a recommendation for deportation in this case. 

Authorities

R v Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 880.

AG-v-Gaffney [1995] JLR N 22b.

AG-v-Fenn and Others [2003] JRC 105.

Mendes-v-AG [2003] JCA 106.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.