Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - robbery - attempted robbery.

[2013]JRC155B

Royal Court

(Samedi)

2 August 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Cornu and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

Kaysha Elizabeth Coughlan

Laurie Ian Murphy

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

Kaysha Elizabeth Coughlan

3 counts of:

Robbery (Counts 1, 2 and 3).

Age:  18.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Street robbery - "mugging".  Around 2am on a Sunday morning Murphy, Coughlan and another walked out of a block of flats and were looking for a taxi.  Four teenagers walking along the street were accosted by Murphy who accused them of laughing at him, which they denied.  Coughlan became involved; she had been carrying a bottle which Murphy took from her.  Murphy threatened one of the teenagers saying he would "smash the bottle over your head and take all your stuff".  Coughlan took the bottle from Murphy and warned them he had a knife.  Murphy then told all four teenagers to empty out their pockets and took a Blackberry mobile phone, £2 and £4 respectively from three of the teenagers.  (The fourth teenager had nothing; the Crown decided it was not in the public interest to pursue a count of attempted robbery to which not guilty pleas had been entered).  Murphy gave the phone to Coughlan; they then walked off leaving the teenagers in a state of shock.  The teenagers, all of whom were sober, reported the incident to the police.  When Coughlan and Murphy were arrested Coughlan had the Blackberry mobile phone and both had small quantities of cash on them.  Murphy was uncooperative during interview, denying all involvement despite positive identification, pleaded not guilty up to Indictment; had been released from a 2 year sentence less than a month before incident.  Coughlan had been released from 10 months' youth detention November 2012.  Both were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of offending.  Crown accepted there was no evidence of existence of any knife. 

Details of Mitigation:

Both pleaded guilty on Indictment.  Reports indicated a very high risk of reconviction for Murphy, but noted that he was at last starting to engage with those best placed to help him move on from a deprived childhood and adolescence.  Reports on Coughlan indicated a substantial change in behaviour and attitude - Probation felt able to recommend Probation/Community Service for first time in 3 years.  Very positive report from Prince's Trust and positively glowing reference from work placement.  Coughlan now has own flat, living with partner and expecting first child. 

Previous Convictions:

Coughlan had 13 previous convictions for 39 offences, starting at age 14.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	12 months' youth detention.
Count 2:	12 months' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' youth detention, concurrent.

Total: 12 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stressed that neither her youth nor her pregnancy would have permitted them to do anything other than impose a sentence of youth detention, but glowing references and support from Probation allowed an exceptional sentence to be imposed; 210 hours, the equivalent to 15 months custody, which would have been the correct sentence.

Count 1:	210 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	210 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	210 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 210 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 15 months' imprisonment, plus an 18 month Probation Order.

Laurie Ian Murphy

3 counts of:

Robbery (Counts 1, 2 and 3).

Age:  22.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Coughlan above.

Details of Mitigation:

See Coughlan above.

Previous Convictions:

Murphy had 31 previous convictions for 100 offences, first court appearance at age 11, institutionalised.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	30 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	30 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	30 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 30 months' imprisonment. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the weapon sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Court noted positive progress while on remand at HMP, urged him to make use of every bit of help available to him while serving sentence, in the hope that he can turn his life around. 

Conclusions granted.

Ms E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for Coughlan.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for Murphy.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The two of you robbed three 16 year olds in the early hours of a Sunday morning as they were returning from an evening out.  You, Coughlan, handed a Pernod bottle to Murphy and he threatened to use it as a weapon by smashing it on the head of one or more of the victims.  The Court accepts that you, Murphy, were the leader of this enterprise but you, Coughlan, also played a part.  So, as a result of that threat of force you obtained a mobile phone and two small amounts of cash.  But robbery is always a serious offence regardless of how much is obtained and we want to remind ourselves of what the Court of Appeal said in the case of Gill-v-AG 1999/160 which sets out the principles in this area:-

"No community can tolerate violent robberies of this kind, and any person who commits such a violent robbery in Jersey, whatever may be the circumstances of the robber, must expect to receive severe punishment by a long prison sentence."

2.        Now in the case of Gill the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 4 years after a trial but it was, we accept, more serious than this case in that it involved a threat to kill by a person holding a knife; but the Court of Appeal indicated that the appropriate sentence would actually have been about 5 years, which would be over 3 years on a guilty plea.  We are fortunate that there are not many muggings in Jersey but this Court is determined to try and keep it that way; and so we reiterate what is said in Gill, that in almost all the circumstances we can envisage robbery will lead to a substantial prison sentence. 

3.        Murphy, you have got a terrible record and you had only been released from prison in February, a matter of a month or so before you committed this offence.  We take into account you have pleaded guilty and we also take into account the very difficult background which you have had.  We are also pleased to hear of the progress in prison, but in your case a prison sentence is inevitable for an offence of this sort. 

4.        Advocate Bell, who said everything that could be said on your behalf, asked us to draw comparisons with three other cases and impose a lesser sentence.  This of itself is always a difficult process and the Court has repeatedly said one cannot compare the facts of one case with another; but in order to consider his submissions, we have looked at the cases.  In Corcoran-v-AG 2002/47 a young man stole money at knifepoint, so to that extent it was more serious than this.  But the offender was only 18 and he had no previous convictions and he received a sentence of 2½ years.  Those two latter factors clearly would have balanced against the more serious nature of that case.  In AG-v-Kilgour [2006] JRC 028 he also received 2½ years following a guilty plea; there, there was no weapon, there was punching but there was no weapon and again, he was 19, so he was a young offender; so we think that was less serious than this case overall.  Advocate Bell also referred us to the case of AG-v-Brockbank, Mildren and Rousseau [2009] JRC 024 where there were no weapons but three defendants set upon the victim and punched and kicked him.  On a guilty plea they received a sentence of 18 months.  We have to say we simply regard that sentence as being too lenient.  We note the Crown only moved for 18 months in that case and that probably explains why the court imposed it, but it is hard to reconcile with the other cases.  We regard the principle as still being that as set out in Gill and in all the circumstances we think that the Crown's conclusions take into account the mitigation.

5.        The sentence in your case will be one of 2½ years' imprisonment, concurrent on each of the charges.  We note the progress you have been making in prison and we hope you will take advantage of it.  Until you can address some of the issues you face, including alcohol and drugs, then we have to say the future is bleak.  If you continue to commit offences when you come out, you will then go back to prison and it will be a revolving door.  You have got talent, if you can turn your life around then there really is hope for the future, so we urge you to take advantage of every bit of help which is offered to you in prison. 

6.        Coughlan, you too have a poor record.  But you have pleaded guilty in this case, you are a young person, only 18, and you are now pregnant and expecting a child.  Those matters alone would not be sufficient to save you from prison, or youth detention in your case, for an offence of this severity.  What has persuaded us that we can take the truly exceptional course of not sending somebody who commits a robbery to detention, is that you really do seem to be at a turning point in your life.  We have read the reports in this case, and they are excellent reports and they show that at long last you really are determined to try and change things.  And this is not just you saying so, you are doing it.  We have read, for example, what you have achieved on the Prince's Trust course, which is a long and testing course; the references you have obtained from that are glowing.  The Crown Advocate referred to one of them, namely that when you went for your work experience at the Funeral Directors, they made it clear that if only they had had a vacancy they would have offered you a job because you were so good.  One of the references said:-

"Kaysha was a pleasure to work with and we will miss her smile.  I wouldn't hesitate to recommend her to anyone considering employing her and wish we had a suitable opening for her at Maillard's.  With the right nurturing support and guidance she will be amazing."

So you clearly have potential, you have talent, and we are pleased to see that you are really determined to change the way things have been.  That is borne out by the probation report, the probation officer says this at the end of the report:

"This is the first time in three years that this service has felt able, with regard to this defendant, to put forward a recommendation for a Probation Order.  This is due to the improvement in Miss Coughlan's willingness to recognise the link between her alcohol intake and her behaviour, the realisation of its effect on the victim concerned and her willingness to effect change for herself to work with this service and hopefully break past patterns to allow her child a decent life."

7.        Now we hope you mean what you have been saying to all the agencies, because you clearly have the ability to change things for the future.  We are going to take a chance in your case and we are going to not send you to youth detention.  We are going to do what the Probation Service strongly recommends, which is a Probation Order coupled with Community Service.  You have to serve Community Service because you must be punished for what you did.  The Probation Order is intended to help you as you move forward.

8.        In your case we are going to impose a Community Service Order of 210 hours, concurrent on each count, and we say that that is the equivalent of 15 months' imprisonment which we think would have been the correct prison sentence given your much lesser involvement in this offence and your mitigation.  We are also going to make a Probation Order of 18 months as recommended, so you can have the help and support of the Probation Service.  Now these are not easy options.  This is going to test you, particularly with the baby coming up, so we would suggest you try and do as much of the Community Service as possible before then.  But you must realise that this is a chance.  If you do not comply with what the probation officer says or if you do not turn up for Community Service, or if you reoffend, then you will come back here and it is hard to see any escape then from a prison sentence.  So we hope very much not to see you again and we hope that the Probation Order and the other steps you are taking will help. 

9.        We order the forfeiture and destruction of the weapon. 

Authorities

Gill-v-AG 1999/160.

Corcoran-v-AG 2002/47.

AG-v-Kilgour [2006] JRC 028.

AG-v-Brockbank, Mildren and Rousseau [2009] JRC 024.