Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - attempted robbery - having an offensive weapon in a public place.

[2014]JRC125

Royal Court

(Samedi)

6 June 2014

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner and Jurats Le Cornu and Milner

The Attorney General

-v-

Callum Robert Hunt

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

1 count of:	Attempted Robbery (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having an offensive weapon in a public [place, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (Count 2).

Age:  21.

Plea: Guilty

Details of Offence:

The defendant entered the Co-op in St. Helier with a hood and scarf concealing his face.  He placed a bag on the counter, and ordered the shop assistant to place all the money in the bag.  He was holding a large kitchen knife in his right hand with the blade facing the counter.  The assistant sounded the bell and the defendant exited the shop. 

Forensic evidence of the bag provided a match to the defendant and when put to him denied any involvement. 

Details of Mitigation:

No one was injured and nothing was stolen and it was confirmed the knife was not pointed directly at anyone; youth; expressed remorse; guilty plea. 

Previous Convictions:

Four previous convictions, including burglary and possession of a knife. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant who is now 21, stands to be sentenced for one count of attempted robbery and one count of having an offensive weapon in his possession.  On 19^th January, 2014, at around 8am the defendant entered the Co-op in Val Plaisant, St Helier, wearing a hood and scarf over his face; he pushed past a customer and placed a crumpled plastic bag on the counter.  He said to the cashier "Put the fucking money in the bag".  She noticed that he was holding a large kitchen knife in his right hand with the sharp end pointing down over the counter onto the bag, and we have seen a photograph of that.  This was right in front of her, and done, in our view, in a threatening manner.  At first she thought it was a joke and ignored his demand.  The defendant became more agitated and went round the back of the counter, standing right behind the cashier, still holding the knife at the level of the counter.  The cashier rang the bell which sounds loudly in the shop at which the defendant appeared to panic and he then left the premises. 

2.        The Crown who referred us to the case of Gill-v-AG ([1999] JLR N18C and 1999/160).  Gill who was aged 42 and had no previous convictions for violence appealed against a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment on account of robbery that involved holding a knife to the throat of a young cashier and stealing £63.  The Court refused leave to appeal and made the following general observations which we quote:-

"A dangerous knife was put to the throat of the young cashier and he was placed in fear of his life or of serious injury.  Whether the robbery was premeditated or not, and whether it was committed under the influence of alcohol or not, are questions of little significance, in the light of the simple fact that the violence committed in the course of the robbery involved putting the young cashier in such fear.

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.

In cases of violence, whether of assault or robbery or rape or other forms of violence, it is necessary that the punishment ordered by the Court should have an element of deterrence, not to deter the offender because it is too late for that, but

(1) to deter others who may be tempted to engage in similar violence, and to remind them that if they do so they will similarly face long sentences of imprisonment; and

(2) to show to the community as a whole that violence of this kind is not to be tolerated and will never be tolerated by the Courts of Jersey."

3.        In AG-v-Whiteley 1998/126 the Royal Court cited from the judgment of Lord Lane, CJ, in the Attorney General's Reference No. 2 of 1989 (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (s) 481 saying:-

"...the deterrent element in punishment of this sort of offence is not primarily to deter the offender himself but to deter others.  In case after case which have been cited to us, which we have not found it necessary to refer to, remarks are made to the effect that it is just this sort of office, the betting shop,..."(to which we will add the chemist shop)" [and to which we would add the Co-Op or a supermarket] "...without the sophisticated protection which banks and building societies may have which requires protection given by the court which protection can only be given, one hopes to some extent successfully given, by imposing sentences which may remind people before they embark upon this sort of enterprise that if they are caught they will go to prison for a long time."

4.        A de facto sentencing band of 18 months to 5½ years' imprisonment was identified.  Whitely was 34 years old with previous convictions for violence and dishonesty and robbed a pharmacist holding a knife to his stomach and demanding drugs.  He received a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment.  In AG-v-Power [2006] JRC 073 a 20 year old accused used a knife to threaten and slightly injure a shopkeeper before stealing £183.  The court said "Robbery with violence is one of the most serious offences against the person" and reiterated the need for deterrent sentences.  Power was sentence to 4 years' youth detention.  The Crown also referred us to the cases of AG-v-Le Feuvre and Watters [2004] JRC 190 and the AG-v-Rousseau [2011] JRC 195. 

5.        The defendant was 20 at the time of the offence and the Prosecution therefore treat him, as do we, as being subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 although technically he is not so. 

6.        The Probation Department assess him at a medium risk of reoffending.  He has previous convictions including convictions for burglary and theft, assault and carrying an offensive weapon and he has breached previous community based orders. 

7.        The Prosecution move for a total sentence of 3 years and 9 months.

8.        In terms of mitigation the defendant, although not cooperative with the police, has pleaded guilty and deserves credit for that.  We have received references on his behalf and in particular a very helpful and moving letter from his parents.  These are parents who actually moved with the defendant to Jersey in order to get him away from his home environment and who stayed with him to see him established here in a job before returning to England and they have come over to be present at this sentencing. 

9.        The defendant had been off work for three weeks as a result of concrete dust getting into his eyes and during this period he had been confined to his room with little money and increasing debt.  We note that despite this increasing debt and lack of income he continued drinking and indeed had been out drinking very heavily the whole of the night and morning before.  We have noted everything put forward by Advocate Landick but this is a very serious offence.  Although the knife was not pointed directly at the cashier it was brandished right in front of her and then behind her and she must have been placed in real fear of serious injury.  The defendant says he had no intention of using the knife on the cashier but a person in a position of the cashier has no idea that that may be the case.  The fact of its presence is what constitutes the threat and gives rise to the fear.  As the Court of Appeal has said no community can tolerate such conduct. 

10.      These offences, as conceded by Advocate Landick, are too serious to warrant a non-custodial sentence and we are therefore going to grant the conclusions of the Crown but with a small adjustment to give greater weight to the youth of the defendant and in acknowledgement of the support of his family, and in particular his parents. 

11.      On Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment, on Count 2; 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Gill-v-AG [1999] JLR N18C.

Gill-v-AG 1999/160.

AG-v-Whiteley 1998/126.

Attorney General's Reference No. 2 of 1989 (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (s) 481.

AG-v-Power [2006] JRC 073.

AG-v-Le Feuvre and Watters [2004] JRC 190.

AG-v-Rousseau [2011] JRC 195.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Hare [2008] JRC 168.