Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - receiving stolen property - larceny by finding - attempted break and entry with intent - obtaining services by fraud.

[2013]JRC166

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 August 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Jermaine Jonathan Bailey

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

Age:  32.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Offences spanned a 3-week period.

1. Mr Bailey bought a Blackberry Torch Mobile phone (value £150-200) from an unknown male in the Shipwright pub for £40.  The item had come from a recent break-in but the Crown accepted that Mr Bailey had no knowledge of or involvement with the break-in. 

2. Mr Bailey was in a park with his daughter, when the man sitting next to him got up and left the park, forgetting his rucksack.  The rucksack contained items including an iPad valued at £500.  The item had come from a recent break-in but the Crown accepted that Mr Bailey had no knowledge or involvement with the break-in. 

3. Mr Bailey attempted to break and enter commercial premises at night by forcing the lock with his Social Security card.  The card snapped and Mr Bailey did not succeed in entering.  There was no-one present, no damage to the property and nothing stolen. 

4. Mr Bailey had stayed at a guesthouse for several nights and paid for the room, however, when he became unable to pay, he continued to stay there, knowing he could not pay.  Total loss to the owners was £260.

Details of Mitigation:

Pleas.  No knowledge of the actual break-ins.  He now had a young daughter who had focussed his mind on wanting to abide by any non-custodial sentence.  The last opportunity the Court had given him to do probation/community service was in 2007. 

Previous Convictions:

Lengthy record - majority of offences were for dishonesty offences.  Several previous convictions for receiving stolen goods.  This was Mr Bailey's fifth Royal Court sentencing in 10 years. 

Conclusions:

Total: 25 months' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Although consecutive sentences were justified, the Court preferred to adopt an approach which enabled the sentence for each offence to be realistic. 

Total: 24 months' imprisonment.

Ms. R. C. L. Morley-Kirk, Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You have been before the courts in the United Kingdom and here on numbers of occasions since 1997.  You have 19 previous convictions involving dishonesty and you are now to be sentenced following guilty pleas to four counts involving dishonesty over a period of 3-4 weeks this year. 

2.        You have no substantial mitigation other than your guilty plea, but we note the goods have been recovered and you have also conquered your drugs problem, which is good, and we have read and considered carefully your very good letter to us. 

3.        The Court considers a custodial sentence is right in principle and indeed is inevitable and you should be aware that further offending of this kind is likely to lead to the sentences going up and up in the future.  You will miss large parts of your child's upbringing if this continues and that time will never come again.  Life does not have to be like this.  You have choices to make and you should think about that while you serve your sentence. 

4.        As far as the sentence itself is concerned the four counts on the Indictment justify consecutive sentences, but we are not going to follow that approach as adopted by the Crown.  We think the sentence imposed on each count should, as far as possible, reflect the offending.  Therefore on Count 1 you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; on Count 2 you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; on Count 3 you are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  Those three sentences will all run concurrently.  On Count 4, which is slightly different offending in any event, you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment which will run consecutively, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment. 

Authorities

AG-v-Pereira and Thomas [2012] JRC 216A.

AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101.

AG-v-Ahier [2013] JRC 055.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077.