Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - breaking and entering and larceny - receiving, hiding or withholding.

[2013]JRC055

Royal Court

(Samedi)

14 March 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Jordan Brian Ahier

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

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

A ground floor flat in St Saviour's Road was entered into during daytime on 22^nd August, 2012, while the householder was out, entry being gained because a fanlight had been left open, making it possible to reach down to open the main window.  A laptop computer, two jewellery boxes and contents (value c.£500) and 40 Euros were stolen (Count 1).  One month later a flat in Aquila Road was broken into, access being gained by smashing a reinforced glass pane in the entrance door to the flat, in the communal hallway, with a fire extinguisher.  A number of items were stolen including a digital camera, gold cufflinks and two watches (value c.£640) and £54 in cash (Count 2).  In both instances items of great sentimental value were stolen. 

Between 28^th September and 5^th October, 2012, a flat in Rouge Bouillon was entered and numerous items of value were stolen, including a number of high value watches.  Over the following days Ahier sold one of the items, a distinctive Rolex watch (value £3,000 - recovered), attempted to sell another, a Tag Hueur watch (value £1,400) and was in possession of a third, a Hugo Boss watch (value £150 - recovered).  Forensic evidence from the break-ins conclusively identified Ahier as having been present at the scenes however he vehemently denied this on interview.  With regard to CCTV footage produced by witnesses showing him in possession of the Rolex and Tag Hueur watches on interview he accepted that the images were of him but denied handling the watches.  He was difficult to interview by being non-cooperative, swearing and constantly trying to deflect difficult questions.  Guilty plea on Count 1 tendered on basis of "aiding, assisting or participating", therefore not acting alone. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas entered on Indictment.  No soiling or ransacking, no repeat visits, occupants not present.  Only act of vandalism the smashing of a glass panel.  Probation officer assessed Ahier as suitable for probation and community service. 

Previous Convictions:

32 previous offences spanning 15 years and 13 appearances for sentencing before Youth Magistrate's and Royal Courts.  History of similar offending.  Majority of offences either drug-related or acquisitive crime. 

Conclusions:

Total: 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Prior to hearing defence counsel's submissions the Learned Deputy Bailiff warned that there should be an increase in conclusions as the course of offending covered a period of 6 weeks and two different offences, which should attract consecutive sentences.  The Court endorsed the Crown's selection of a 2 year "focal point" in relation to Counts 1 and 2 and the increase of 6 months in view of the period of offending, the dramatic effect on the victims (one, a retired lady, was still scouring antique shops and visiting car boot sales in hope of finding her items) and Ahier's previous record.  The Court was in no doubt that the sentences in relation to Counts 3, 4, and 5 should be consecutive to Counts 1 and 2 and accepted the defence's proposition that Bailey should be followed, reducing the Crown's conclusions to 15 months.  However the resultant sentence of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment was considered too high.  Having considered the various approaches to totality the Court decided to increase the penalties in relation to Counts 1 and 2 and make all sentences concurrent. 

Total: 3 years' imprisonment. 

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate G. A. H. Baxter for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains two counts of breaking and entering and larceny.  You pleaded guilty to those counts on the basis that in relation to one of them you aided or assisted in it; and you admitted three counts of receiving.  The properties broken into were unoccupied residential properties and the breaks were committed during daylight hours.  None of the items stolen from the two flats have been recovered.  There were no particularly high value items taken in either instance but there were items of sentimental value which were taken and these, because they are of sentimental value, are irreplaceable.  You will no doubt have seen from the victim personal statement, that one of the victims has been round the second hand shops and car boot sales in the hope of finding some of these items that mean so much to her and that does emphasise the aggravating nature of this particular offence. 

2.        In relation to Count 1 the victim was a very house-proud lady of modest means and she has said in her victim personal statement how the offence has affected her and made her feel unsafe in her own home, which is a very serious matter.  In relation to Count 2 the victim is a 50 year old male who lost gold cufflinks given to him by his father many years ago and a more recent birthday present of particularly sentimental value, and some family photographs.  In relation to the receiving offences, you have admitted receiving, hiding or withholding three watches to a total value of more than £4,500.  Generally when interviewed you gave very little information to the interviewing officers as to your participation in the original offence which you played down and you just said that you were doing something for someone. 

3.        The Court has been referred to the various authorities.  We think that the 2-year focal point for the first two counts is correct and we then look at aggravating and mitigating circumstances.  The aggravating circumstances here are that the offences have been committed over a period and secondly, that there is a dramatic affect on the victims which I have mentioned in passing, and also you have a bad record.  The guilty plea has already been taken into account in starting with that focal point.  We think that a sentence of 2 years and 6 months as moved for by the Crown on those two counts was right and, but for other factors, that is the sentence we would have imposed.  In relation to Counts 3, 4 and 5, these were the receiving offences that took place separately, and in our view there is no doubt that a consecutive sentence ought to be applied for these offences.  The right sentence we think should be 15 months on each of those counts.  The result of this would be that you would be sentenced to a total of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment rather than the period moved for by the Crown of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.  We have considered the question of the totality of that sentence and we think it is too high so we are going to reduce it; the question is how we do that. 

4.        In the circumstances we are going to increase the sentence moved for on Counts 1 and 2 to 3 years' imprisonment so you will be sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment on each of those counts, concurrent and on Counts 3, 4 and 5 to 15 months' imprisonment on each of those counts concurrent, both with each other and with Counts 1 and 2, making a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 

5.        Things are only going to get worse for you if you continue like this.  It is time that you realised that.  We recognise from the background reports that you have had your own difficulties.  We urge you to use your time in prison constructively because if you continue along this path the sentences which are imposed by this Court are likely to get only higher. 

Authorities

AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218.

AG-v-Moreira [2003] JRC 083A.

AG-v-Wylie [2006] JRC 026.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077.