Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - breaking and entering and larceny.

[2013]JRC008

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 January 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Oliver Munks

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

Age:  34.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

One morning in July 2012, the owner of a house in St Clement left at around 8:00am to drop her children to school.  When she returned home at 11:45am she noticed a plastic bag just inside the gates to her house.  Thinking it was litter, she investigated only to find that it contained her jewellery box, together with other items from her bedroom.  Together these items had a value of almost £15,000.  She then checked inside her house and discovered that someone had entered the property in her absence and searched her bedroom - drawers were open and items strewn on the floor. 

She called the police, who investigated the scene.  A pair of orange gloves was found in the plastic bag and the plastic bag itself was found to have fingerprints on it.  Forensic analysis of the gloves showed a DNA profile match with that of Munks. 

Munks was arrested but denied the break-in.  He conceded that he had a pair of orange gloves that he used for fishing, but said that he had disposed of them away in a bin on an earlier date.  He said that, if his fingerprints were found in the bag, it would be pure coincidence, maintaining that he might have touched the "movable" bag at some other location. 

When charged he entered a not guilty plea.  A trial date was fixed.  In the meantime the fingerprints were analysed and a match was also made to Munks.  Prior to trial, Munks then changed his plea.  At sentencing he alleged that he had carried out the break-in as a joint enterprise with another person.  He alleged that he had committed the offence as he needed the money and that he intended to sell the stolen items.  However, he alleged that at the last moment he had changed his mind and instead left them in the garden. 

Details of Mitigation:

Late guilty plea.  All stolen items recovered. 

Previous Convictions:

Thirty three previous offences, three of which were for break and entry/illegal entry offences, and for which he had been sentenced to periods of imprisonment. 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate M. R. Godden for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Munks, you are here to be sentenced on one count on this Indictment of breaking into residential accommodation in July of last year.  The property you broke into was an unoccupied residential house; the owner had recently left to drop her children at school, the break-in occurred during the day and the stolen items, which were quite valuable, have all been recovered because they were left, indeed, at the property. 

2.        In our view the custody threshold, as it is sometimes described, has been passed, which is to say that we think a custodial sentence is right.  The guideline case is AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218, where the Court said in that case, quoting from an earlier judgment:-

"It is common knowledge that breaking into a private dwelling has a most distressing effect invariably on the occupiers of the dwelling.  Sometimes that effect takes a form of fear and in all cases it takes a form of distress.  And we believe that that is an element of this offence which is not always sufficiently appreciated by some Courts...the distress element, which is an aggravating factor."

3.        When we look at the victim's personal statement in this case, she says this:-

"My biggest worry is that the offender will come back to our house because he never got away with what he took.  He knows what is in the house, what he could have had and how much the goods were valued at.  I struggle to allow my kids who don't know what's happened, to stay alone at home.  My son is of an age where he likes to stay at home if I am just popping out but I can't leave him as I think that the one time I do he will come back.  This break-in has definitely affected our behaviour as we are now so security conscious, always checking doors are locked or locking things away.  We should not have to live or feel like this in our own home."

That is a very powerful statement of the impact of this offence on the victim. 

4.        We recognise that you have got a poor record of previous offences and it is distressing that should be so because it is obvious from the background reports that you are an intelligent man and that you have many good qualities.  We have taken into account your guilty plea and we have taken into account everything which is in the social enquiry report, and your expressions of remorse through your counsel.  To the extent it might have been suggested that your financial hardship was some sort of excuse for what you have done - in fairness to your counsel I do not think it was put that way - but it is right to emphasise that many people suffer financial hardship, particularly at the moment, but they do not commit this type of offence.  It is really no justification for what you have done at all.  You have to be punished for what you have done and the Court thinks the conclusions are right. 

5.        Accordingly you are sentenced to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218.

AG-v-Wylie [2006] JCA 098.