Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - breaking and entry and larceny.

[2012]JRC116

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 June 2012

The Attorney General

-v-

Paulo Jorge Mendes Moniz

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

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In the early hours of Boxing Day an eye witness saw Moniz removing trays of rings and jewellery from a commercial premise in Bath Street. When confronted by the witness, Moniz ran off taking trays of jewellery with him.  Eventually apprehended by police and claimed that an acquaintance "Alex" broke into the shop and he was just helping him to remove the jewellery.  The value of the jewellery taken was in the region of "12,000 of which items to the value of £875 were either lost or damaged.  The remainder of the jewellery recovered.  No evidence to support the account provided by Moniz.  Moniz was under the influence of alcohol when he committed the offence.  Claim for compensation made by owners of the shop due to damage to jewellery trays, window and loss of trade. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea entered on Indictment but the Crown contended given the circumstances of arrest not entitled to full one third discount.  Good employment record.  Did not have the benefit of youth or good character albeit had not committed any offences for some seven years.

The Defence

The facts accepted.  Offence committed on spur of the moment whilst under the influence of alcohol.  Had turned life around in the last seven years; no longer misusing drugs.  No offences since 2005.  Full time employment since then, fixed accommodation and support of family.  Guilty plea entered on first appearance in Magistrate's Court.  Remorse.  On bail throughout and had not re-offended.  Previous record committed against background of drug use.  This has ceased.  Suitable for Community Service Order and in a position to pay compensation. 

Previous Convictions:

Ten convictions for a total of thirty two offences including receiving stolen goods, breaking and entry, possession of drugs and motoring offences. 

Conclusions:

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £3,426.02.

No recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant was to be sentenced for an offence of breaking and entry and larceny into commercial premises.  The stolen jewellery was to the value of approximately £12,000 - £13,000.  Some of it lost but most recovered.  Jewellery that was lost or damaged valued at £875.  He was drunk at the time of committing offence and the Court made clear that this was not a mitigating factor but was an aggravating factor.  In normal circumstances such an offence would have resulted in a custodial sentence.  However on this occasion the Court was not going to send him to prison.  He had a poor record including offences of dishonesty and breaking and entry and larceny.  Spent the last seven years out of trouble and the Court had concluded that on this occasion a custodial sentence could be avoided. 

Warning as to consequences if did not complete community service or if he re-offended.

The Court considered whether they should make a recommendation for deportation but decided not to on this occasion.  The defendant was advised that it was a privilege for foreign nationals to live in Jersey and if he abused that privilege again then he would be at risk of being recommended for deportation.

Compensation Order made in the sum of £3,426.02 to be at a rate of £300 per month or a default sentence of 9 months' imprisonment. 

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

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

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        In the early hours of Boxing Day last year you stole jewellery which was valued at some £12,000 to £13,000 and of that some of the jewellery has not been recovered.  The retail value of that was, we are told by your counsel, something in the order of £890.  Apparently you were drunk.  Drunkenness does not operate as any form of mitigating factor.   It operates as an aggravating factor.  It is no excuse to say that you would not have committed the offence if you had not been drunk.  If you are going to behave like this you should not get drunk.  That is a straightforward answer to that. 

2.        In normal circumstances an offence of this kind carries a custodial sentence and despite the very eloquent speech which your counsel has made on your behalf and all the points which he makes as mitigating points, which we recognise, most of them would normally not result in any different sentence.  But on this occasion we are not going to send you to prison and I am just going to explain briefly why.  You have had a truly poor record.  That record includes offences of dishonesty, of breaking and entering and of larceny and that would normally mean that when you came to be sentenced for this offence today it would be treated even more seriously.  But you have spent 7 years out of trouble and for that reason the Court thinks that it is possible to avoid a custodial sentence and that the punishment is going to be a sentence served in the community by way of community service. 

3.        We are therefore going to sentence you to 240 hours' community service.  We would have imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months' imprisonment as the alternative and I warn you that if for any reason you do not perform the community service then the Court will be free to examine what you have done by way of community service and the reasons why you have not performed it, and you are liable to be sentenced again for the offence you have committed.  The problem seems to be one of drink and it is almost certainly the case that you have got to address that yourself.

4.        In addition to the community service, however, you will realise that you have caused the shopkeeper some loss and the Court thinks that it is right to impose a Compensation Order in the amount claimed of £3,426.  We have looked at the means which you have.  You have said through your counsel and I see it was also said to the probation officer, that you earn £336 per week, we have looked at what you pay to your parents and we think that you can pay the Compensation Order at £300 per month.  If it is not paid then there is a default sentence of 9 months' imprisonment.  So you had better pay it because otherwise you will go to prison. 

5.        We are required to consider the question of deportation and we have considered that.  The Court is not going to make a recommendation for deportation.  Again your counsel made good points on your behalf and points out that you have been in the Island for many years, since 1993, that your sister lives here, your family and your parents.  But nonetheless I need to add this for your benefit.  It is a privilege for foreign nationals to live in this Island and if you abuse that privilege you are liable to deportation.  It is not going to be recommended on this occasion.  Frankly in the light of your 7 years out of trouble and the changes you have made in your life, we hope it will not be necessary to be considered again, but you must be aware that that is a possibility even though you have been here some years. 

Authorities

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

AG-v-Egan and O'Neill 2000/184.

Lynch-v-AG [1991] JLR N 15d.

AG-v-Stevenson [2004] JRC 121.