Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - illegal entry and larceny - larceny.

[2014]JRC237B

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 November 2014

The Attorney General

-v-

Gage James Saville

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

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 12^th June, 2014, the police received two phone calls from members of the public in relation to two men seen wheeling a bin along the road in the early hours of the morning.  On conducting a search of the area the police discovered the wheelie bin, a black sweater and a safe containing £1,847.34 all hidden in undergrowth. 

The same morning the Old Station Café reported a break in.  A safe which had been secured to the floor had been stolen.  The wheelie had also been stolen from a neighbouring property. 

The defendant's fingerprints were subsequently found on the wheelie bin, and also on a plastic carrier bag which had been found inside the Café.  Consequently the defendant was arrested.  Although he denied the offence in interview, he ultimately entered guilty pleas. 

The offending put the defendant in breach of a Community Service Order made in May 2014 for various earlier offending.  The defendant had broken into vehicles, causing damage and stealing £800 worth of property.  The defendant had also broken into the Hotel De Normandie.  He had failed to attend a court hearing and had subsequently been found in contempt of court. 

Details of Mitigation:

Youth and guilty plea.  The safe, its contents and the bin were all recovered and returned. 

Previous Convictions:

The defendant had 41 previous convictions including 19 theft offences. 

Conclusions:

Breach of Community Service Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court dated 8^th May, 2014: 1 month and 3 weeks' youth detention, consecutive to Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment. 

Total: 16 months and 3 weeks' youth detention. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted. 

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

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains two counts, one of illegal entry and larceny of a safe which contained £1,850 or thereabouts, and also a count of larceny in the sum of £50, being a wheelie bin.  As a result of those offences you are liable to be sentenced also for a series of offences which were before the Magistrate's Court on 8^th May, 2014. 

2.        Your counsel rightly reminds us that you are entitled in mitigation to the value of your guilty plea; she points out that you are, in relation to the Indictment before us, only one of two people who committed the offence, and that you have not had an easy background.  She also has mentioned other factors in relation to the breach offences which we have listened to and considered.  In particular she mentions your youth and what you should know is that mitigation for youth is a diminishing asset; that means it gets less valuable as mitigation as time goes on, a) because you get older and, b) when you commit more and more offences.  Now, as a result of the law on Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994, which you will know about because you have heard the Court say so previously, we are required not to sentence you to youth detention unless some of the factors in article 4 of that law are met. 

3.        You have been given many chances by the Courts of this Island.  You have been given much help by a number of agencies, especially the Probation Service and you have rejected those chances and that help and the Court is quite satisfied that although you are only 19, and that the 1994 law applies, your history of failing to respond to custodial sentences means that there is no method of dealing with you now other than by the imposition of a custodial sentence.  And we have taken into account the numbers of previous convictions, 41 of them, 19 of which are for dishonesty. 

4.        We are going to grant the conclusions of the Crown. 

5.        While you serve your sentence you will have time to think about how you see your life before you; do you want to be in and out of prison for the rest of your life?  Do you realise that if you continue to commit offences the sentences are likely to get longer and longer?  These are serious questions and you need to think about them while you serve your sentence.  We have read your letter and in it you say that you are thinking about them and that is good and we hope that is right.  We also read your sister's letter and it is clear that she loves and respects you and that is something special for you.  So when you serve your sentence you have got to remember, and this is the most important thing actually, you have got to remember that you, you are important.  How you live your life is an important decision and it is your choice and you should make the right one.  There are some quite hopeful indications in what is set out in the probation report and in your letter and the Court hopes that you will take this sentence positively because you have to be sentenced for the offences which you have committed. 

6.        In the circumstances on the Indictment you are sentenced to 15 months' youth detention on Count 1, 2 weeks' youth detention , concurrent, on Count 2 and on the breach offences for breaking and entering into the hotel; 1 month and 3 weeks' youth detention which runs consecutively, there will be no separate penalty on the contempt of Court, 1 week's youth detention on the four charges of larceny from motor vehicles and 1 week's youth detention on the malicious damage, all those are concurrent, and so the total for which you are sentenced is 16 months and 3 weeks' youth detention.  On your release you may be liable to a period of supervision in accordance of Article 10 of the 1994 Law and your counsel will explain that to you.  Do think hard. 

Authorities

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

AG v Gaffney 1995/101.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.

Harrison v AG [2004] JLR 111.