Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - breaking and entry and larceny - illegal entry and larceny.

[2014]JRC029

Royal Court

(Samedi)

31 January 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Leslie Lynn

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

Age:  56.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant broke into commercial premises at night knowing the contents were subject to a Saisie Judiciare and under the control of the Viscount.  He stole property with an estimated value in excess of £72,000 and stored it in two rented lock-ups.  

Aggravating features - the offence was planned, targeted, for financial gain and was deliberately intended to frustrate a court order. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty plea.  Co-operation with the police, to an extent.  Majority of the goods were recovered.  No convictions for dishonesty. 

Previous Convictions:

Previous convictions for drug trafficking offences, possession of drugs, motoring offences and wasting police time. 

Conclusions:

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Mrs S. J. O'Donnell, Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of breaking and entry and larceny and one count of illegal entry and larceny.  Following a saisie judiciaire granted by the Court in respect of Liam Norris in relation to drugs offences, the Viscount took possession of property of his situated in his work premises referred to as "the Hanger".  The building was secured by the Viscount with two new padlocks and regularly inspected by the Viscount's Department. 

2.        Having rented part of a lock-up garage using a false name, the defendant, who knows Mr Norris, travelled in a van to "the Hanger" at night with bolt cutters which he used to remove the padlocks and replaced them with new padlocks of his own.  That day and a week later the defendant removed nine motorcycles and other equipment which he stored in the lock-up garage and elsewhere.  The items removed have been independently valued at £72,062.50. 

3.        The defendant has failed to attend interviews with the Probation Department.  He is aged 56 and, apart from a sister in the Island, has no other family or dependants.  He has a record of serious drug-related offences. 

4.        The Crown relies on the case of AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101 which suggests a focal point of 18 months for an offence of breaking and entry on commercial premises at night, on a guilty plea.  That case involved goods to the value of £2,027.94.  The Crown also referred us to the case of AG-v-Chabros [2012] JRC 087 where a 32 year old defendant was convicted of two counts of breaking and entry and larceny together with one count of attempted breaking and entry with larceny of commercial premises.  He stole almost £19,000 in cash and attempted to steal a further £24,000.  The case was described as an "inside job" as the defendant knew where to find the key to the safe.  The offences were carefully planned and no forensic evidence was available.  The money stolen was not recovered.  Chabros was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment.  The tariff imposed would appear to us to be low when considering the suggested focal point in Gaffney on a guilty plea.  The Crown also referred us to the case of AG-v- Da Silva 1997/218.  Although this case concerns breaking into private dwellings the judgment looks at the issues regarding how to ascertain the seriousness of the offence and those features which will aggravate the offence.  It also emphasises the difficulty laying down specific guidelines.  The Court referred to Whelan's Aspects on Sentencing where the author has made reference to the observations of Lord Taylor in the case of R-v-Cole [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 1993:-

"Burglaries vary in their gravity.  It is one thing for one or two people who have had too much to drink on their way home to think of breaking into a shop.  This is serious enough and may well involve a prison sentence.  But where (as in this instant case) one has a carefully planned and targeted offence.  It is in a different league."

5.        The Crown submits that there are aggravating factors here.  These offences were carefully planned and targeted for financial gain and deliberately intended to frustrate an Order of the Court.  Furthermore, the value of the items stolen was substantial. 

6.        The Crown has therefore moved for a sentence of 3 years on Count 1 and 18 months on Count 2, concurrent. 

7.        In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty.  To an extent he has been cooperative with the police.  It is true that the majority of the goods have been recovered, but in our view the defendant gets little credit for this as that was only through the action of the police.  We have taken into account all of the mitigation put forward by Advocate Fogarty but we agree with the conclusions of the Crown. 

8.        On Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.  That is a total of 3 years' imprisonment. 

Authorities

AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101.

AG-v-Chabros [2012] JRC 087.

AG-v- Da Silva 1997/218.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey Third Edition.

R-v-Cole [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 1993.

Sentencing Council Burglary Offences Definitive Guideline.