Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - breaking and entry and larceny - receiving, hiding or withholding stolen property - accessory after the fact to breaking and entering and larceny.

[2013]JRC062

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 March 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Anthony Wylie

Maureen Kathleen Jamieson

Carl Eric Dodds

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

David Anthony Wylie

1 count of:

Breaking and entry and larceny (Count 1).

Age:  50.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Wylie broke and entered an unoccupied residential property during the day by throwing a brick through a patio window.  Untidy search conducted of main bedroom and jewellery and related items with a total value of £17,835 stolen.  Other items of non-monetary value but sentimental value also stolen.  Items to the value of £13,905 recovered, the items unrecovered having a value of £3,930 plus items of sentimental value.

Wylie took stolen property to Jamieson's home address, left jacket and shoes which connected him to the breaking and entry at her address and also left the vast majority of the jewellery in her safe-keeping over the weekend.  Wylie contacted Dodds whilst at Jamieson's and handed over to him five items having a total value of £2,780.  Dodds knew the items were stolen and paid Wylie £300 for them.  Dodds sent four items of jewellery to a UK company that paid cash for jewellery.  These items were recovered by the police. 

Dodds also handed an Omega lady's watch worth £1,290 and he claimed that he sold that onto another male for £200.  The watch was not recovered. 

Jamieson then assisted Wylie in packaging up all of the remaining jewellery which Wylie was to send to his sister in England.  It was Wylie's intention to then travel to the UK to collect the package and then sell on the stolen jewellery at his leisure.  Jamieson wrote the labels etc and made a false declaration as to its contents and also provided a false name and address as to the sender of the package.  The police intervened and recovered the package before it could be sent out of the Island. 

Wylie went "no comment" in interview other than to claim that he had purchase the jewellery.  Jamieson made full admissions as to her role and her contact with Wylie and prior to Indictment offered to provide a witness statement and to give evidence against Wylie if necessary.  Dodds was not overly co-operative in interview but admitted sending items of jewellery to the UK company and whilst claimed he could recover the watch, did not in fact do so and did not provide any further assistance. 

Forensic analysis of the red jacket worn by Wylie at the time of the break in covered glass samples which matched the broken window.  Jacket clearly linked to Wylie as it had his DNA on it.  Also Wylie's fingerprint recovered from the wrappings on the postal package. 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

A career criminal.  Exceptionally poor record.  Not cooperative in interview and made false claim as to having purchased the jewellery.  Crown unable to identify any mitigating factors other than guilty plea which was entered on Indictment after full disclosure of the forensic evidence which linked him to the offence.  Substantial term of imprisonment warranted to protect the public from the continuation of Wylie's criminal career. 

The Defence

Accepted that a custodial sentence was likely.  This was a spontaneous offence: not sophisticated.  He believed the house was unoccupied.  The majority of the property was recovered.  Absence of aggravating factors here.  Guilty plea suggested that he was entitled to some benefit.  Remorseful and offered apology.  Personal problems regarding health, finance and relationship issues.  The Crown's conclusions of 3½ years were excessive and a more appropriate sentence would be one in the region of 2 years' imprisonment. 

Previous Convictions:

21 convictions for 89 offences including 57 for theft and kindred offences such as burglary, larceny and receiving stolen goods; numerous motoring including TADA, driving whilst disqualified/uninsured, DIC, ABH and public order offences. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

On 2^nd November, 2012, in the Parish of St Lawrence Wylie broke into a property whilst the owners were away and stole £17,835 of goods of which £3,930 remains unrecovered.  Of greater importance were the items of sentimental value which still remain unrecovered.  The loss of such sentimental items is always most upsetting.  Wylie had then gone to Jamieson's house where he left most of the jewellery and some clothing.  He returned 2 days later and was helped by Jamieson to package up the jewellery into a parcel and to post it to the UK.  Wylie had every intention of then traveling to the UK to sell those items.  Dodds received £2,780 worth of goods paying £300 for them and he had sold a watch for £200.  He had sent the other items to a company in the UK that paid cash for jewellery.  Dodds intended to make a profit from his actions. 

The Court had noted the contents of the victims' personal statement and as is often the case in crimes of this nature, the offences had a considerable effect upon the victim.  The Court cited from the case of Brewster which had been quoted with approval in the case of AG-v-Da Silva.  In this case the victim had suffered a sense of violation and insecurity.  This was a very important aspect of the offence of burglary. 

Wylie was a career criminal and had numerous convictions for burglary and dishonesty.  He received a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for an offence of burglary in 2006 and the Court expressed disappointment that he was before it again for the same offence.  There was some mitigation for his guilty plea but he was not cooperative and did not plead guilty until later in the proceedings.  The Court had noted his health issues and had read the letters and references.  The Court had also noted the Defence submissions as to a 2 year focal point for sentencing.  Offences of burglary varied considerably as did sentencing.  The previous 3 year sentence had not taught him anything. 

Conclusions granted.

Maureen Kathleen Jamieson

1 count of:	Accessory after the fact to breaking and entering and larceny (Count 2).
1 count of:	Receiving, hiding or withholding stolen property (Count 3).

Age:  55.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Wylie above.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

She was involved in the offence by Wylie and to a degree acted under his influence.  Had ample time to realise error of ways.  Assisted in hiding the jewellery and also Wylie's clothing which linked him to the breaking and entry.  Assisted and participated in Wylie's plan to have the jewellery sent out the Island.  Guilty plea.  Co-operative in interview making detailed admissions.  Willingness to assist the Prosecution re: provision of statement etc.  One previous conviction of no relevance.  Only benefitted from the offence by the purchase of a case of lager by Wylie.  Background reports recommended a non-custodial sentence. 

The Defence

Guilty plea at Magistrate's Court therefore full credit.  Fully cooperative.  Over and above cooperation by genuine offer to assist Crown.  No payment or real benefit from handling stolen property.  Involvement limited.  Extremely remorseful.  A vulnerable individual with a dependant personality suffering from chronic depression and anxiety.  Not a typical receiver of stolen goods.  Had spent time on remand.  Recommended non-custodial sentence. 

Previous Convictions:

1 conviction for grave and criminal assault. 

Conclusions:

Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court accepted this was not a pre-meditated offence on her part but she had provided assistance in hiding clothing and helped dispose of the stolen goods to the UK.  The Court also accepted that she was not a typical receiver of stolen goods.  She had not received anything for them and had made no money from her involvement.  The Court accepted that she had no previous similar convictions.  The Court noted the letters and background reports.  She was a chronic depressive and a vulnerable person and easily led.  She was prepared to give additional assistance to the Court in providing a witness statement etc.  The Court has said on previous occasions the Court is willing to assist those who will give such evidence, such individuals deserve considerable credit.  Overall the Court concluded that a non-custodial sentence was the most appropriate sentence for her.  She was given a clear warning as to the consequences were she not to comply with the terms of a non-custodial sentence or to re-offend. 

Count 2:	180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, plus a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 3:	180 hours' Community Service Order, concurrent, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, plus a 12 month Probation Order.

Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 12 months' imprisonment, plus a 12 month Probation Order.

Carlo Eric Dodds

1 count of:

Receiving, hiding or withholding stolen property (Count 4).

Age:  44.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Wylie above.

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea on first appearance in Magistrate's Court.  Not particularly co-operative.  Not of good character.  Numerous previous convictions for dishonesty but none since 1999.  Did not name whom he had purchased the items from or to whom he had sold the watch. 

The Defence

Early guilty plea.  Did not name others as misplaced loyalty.  Expressed regret and apologies.  Previous convictions committed when a young man.  Now a reformed character.  Stable relationship.  No advance knowledge of the offence.  Spent time on remand.  Non-custodial sentence appropriate for him. 

Previous Convictions:

10 convictions for 15 offences including burglary and theft, robbery, shop-lifting, ABH and DIC.

Conclusions:

Count 4:

14 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Received £2,780 worth of goods for which he paid £300.  He had tried to sell the goods on.  He had a bad character albeit not as bad as Wylie.  His last offence was in 1999 and it had appeared that he had turned his life around and this it was sad to see him before the Court again.  He had entered an early plea.  The Court had noted the letters and reports.  The Court reiterated the observation that without receivers there would be less burglary/theft.  The Court concluded that Dodds deserved a custodial sentence.  The Court concluded with the following observation:-

"It is quite clear that this burglary and the associated offences were discovered by the Police in a skilful operation.  We would like to commend them for the way they brought these offenders to justice and the fact they were able to discover the offenders and resolve this matter promptly."

Conclusions granted.

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

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Wylie.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for Jamieson.

Advocate P. S. Landick for Dodds.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Wylie, on the 2^nd November broke into a house in St Lawrence when the owners were away and stole jewellery with a total value of some £17,825, of which items valued at £3,930 are still unrecovered.  Just as, if not more importantly, there are items of sentimental value to the owners which are also unrecovered, and the loss of sentimental material by victims of burglary is always a most upsetting aspect of that offence.  Shortly after carrying out the burglary, Wylie came across the defendant Jamieson and asked her to get into the car in which he had the stolen property; they both then went back to Jamieson's home and took out the jewellery.  Most of it was left with her in her house, along with some of the clothing that Wylie had been wearing at the time of the burglary.  Wylie came back 3 days later and, at his request, Jamieson helped him pack up the jewellery and she then took it to the Post Office and posted it to Wylie's sister in the UK.  Clearly Wylie was going to go over to the UK, collect it and then sell it for profit.  Dodds received some of the jewellery from Wylie.  It was worth some £2,780.  He paid Wylie £300 for it and clearly intended to make a profit.  He sold an Omega watch for £200 and sold the rest to a firm in England called "Cash for Gold".  It was recovered from there so he never in fact received the profit. 

2.        We have seen the victim statement from the wife of the couple whose house this was.  As so often it has had a considerable affect on her.  We remind ourselves of what was said in the English case of R-v-Brewster & Others [1998] 1 Cr App R 220 which was approved in the Jersey case of Da Silva 1997/218:-

"Most people, perfectly legitimately, attach importance to the privacy and security of their own homes.  That an intruder should break in or enter for his own dishonest purposes, leaves the victim with a sense of violation and insecurity."

And that is clearly what has happened in this case, as in so many others, and it is a most unpleasant aspect of the offence of burglary. 

3.        Wylie, you are a career criminal as you have accepted in the report.  You have many convictions for burglary and dishonesty and as recently as 2006 you were sentenced to 3 years for one count of burglary and for a consecutive 3 years for various other offences; so you were sent to prison for 6 years in all.  Now you are before the Court again for another offence of burglary. 

4.        In mitigation we have taken into account your guilty plea, but you were not cooperative at interview and your plea was not entered at the earliest opportunity; therefore you do not get the full discount for the guilty plea.  We have listened carefully to the other matters which Advocate Bell has put forward on your behalf, including the state of your health.  We have also read the letters and the references.  We have also taken note of his submission about the focal point of 2 years but offences of burglary vary enormously and so do sentences.  We note that the previous offence attracted a sentence of 3 years which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.  That sentence appears to have taught you nothing because now you are back before the Court again. 

5.        In all the circumstances we think the Crown's conclusions are correct.  The sentence in your case will be 3½ years' imprisonment for the one count which you face. 

6.        Jamieson, we accept that your involvement was not premeditated; you were approached by Wylie but you did then provide significant assistance.  You hid the jewellery over the weekend, you hid his clothing, which might have made it more difficult for the police to track down the offender, and then you helped him dispose of the jewellery by posting it off to his sister's address in England.  We do accept however that this is not a typical case of receiving - so often the receivers buy the property from the thief hoping to make a profit.  You never got any of this jewellery, you made no money out of it, you simply helped him dispose of it. 

7.        In mitigation we take into account the fact that you made immediate admissions at interview and you pleaded guilty at an early stage, so you are entitled to full credit for that.  We also take into account that you have no previous convictions of dishonesty, your one previous conviction was of a totally different nature and we take no note of it for these purposes.  We have read the letters that have been handed into us and we have read carefully the background report and the psychological report and it is clear that you suffer from chronic depression and that you were vulnerable and easily led.  Most importantly in your case, you indicated that you would be willing to help the prosecution by giving evidence against your co-accused, by providing a witness statement and, if necessary, giving evidence in court.  This Court has repeatedly said that where a defendant is willing to assist in giving information or helping the prosecution of others, we will give considerable credit and therefore reduce the sentence which would otherwise be passed. 

8.        Putting all those matters together, we have just been persuaded that in your case we can impose a non-custodial sentence as your advocate asks and as the probation report has suggested.  So on Counts 2 and 3 we are imposing a sentence of 180 hours' Community Service, concurrent; that is the equivalent of 12 months' imprisonment.  We are also going to make a Probation Order for 12 months as recommended by the report.  Now you must understand that if you do not turn up to do the work or if you do not do what your probation officer says or, of course, if you reoffend, then you will be brought back here and at that stage the most likely outcome is that you will go to prison. 

9.        Dodds you received £2,780 worth of this stolen jewellery; you paid £300 for it and you hoped to make a profit.  As we have said already, you tried to sell it but that was interrupted by the police operation.  You too have a bad record but not nearly as bad as Wylie's and in your case in particular, you have not been guilty of any offence of dishonesty since 1999 and you really do appear to have turned your life around.  It is therefore very sad to see you now before us, and we are sure it has caused great distress to your family. 

10.      In mitigation we take into account your guilty plea, which in your case was early and therefore you are entitled to credit for that.  As we say you have been out of trouble since 1999, we have considered all the letters which have been written to us and we have considered the report.  It gives us no pleasure to have to impose a custodial sentence in your case but we feel we must, given the nature of the receiving and the fact that as the Court has so often said, without receivers there would be less incentive for people to burgle. 

11.      In your case we impose a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment as requested by the Crown. 

12.      We would just like to end by saying this.  It is quite clear that this burglary and the associated offences were discovered by the police in a skilful operation, we would like to commend them for the way they brought these offenders to justice and the fact that they were able to discover the offenders and resolve this matter promptly. 

Authorities

R-v-Brewster & Others [1998] 1 Cr App R 220.

AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey 3^rd Edition.

AG-v-Wylie [2006] JRC 026.

Wylie-v-AG [2006] JCA 098.

Wylie-v-AG 2002/13.