Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Illegal entry and larceny - breaking and entering and larceny - larceny - breaking and entering with intent - attempted breaking and entering with intent

[2015]JRC198A

Royal Court

(Samedi)

28 September 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Kevan John Falle

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 24^th July, 2015, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  42.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

When being questioned in relation to a burglary he admitted a total of 23 other similar offences, the majority of which were unknown to the police.  Two committed in 2012, the remainder in a five month period shortly after release from previous sentence.  Most committed in daylight, but occupants confronted in a small number of cases.  Carried out opportunistically and often whilst intoxicated.  Only about one third of the approximately £10,000 worth of property stolen was recovered.  One householder suffered minor injury in Falle's drunken escape over her fence. 

Details of Mitigation:

Largely wrote own indictment; guilty pleas; difficulties in childhood; attempting to play bigger part in life of his children. 

Previous Convictions:

110 offences, mostly thefts. 

Conclusions:

Total: 4 years' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        Mr Falle, you have pleaded guilty to 24 offences of dishonesty involving 22 offences of breaking and entry or illegal entry and two of larceny.  Most of them were committed between November 2014, starting only a very short time after your release from prison, and March 2015, although two of them were back in 2012.  Essentially the offences involved burglaries in the daytime of residential properties.  On three occasions the premises were occupied at the time, and two of them were at night.  The total value of the property taken was just over £10,000 and approximately one-third has been recovered in value. 

2.        The Court has repeatedly said that the burglary of residential property is regarded as serious, not least because of the distress so often caused to the victims and that is evident in certain of the cases here.  They are often left with a sense of violation and insecurity which leaves them feeling frightened and vulnerable at the thought that somebody has broken into the sanctity of their own home. 

3.        You have an appalling record, having been before the Court on some thirty occasions in total involving over 100 offences, many of them breaking and entering into people's homes.  Advocate Fogarty has emphasised your guilty plea; she has also emphasised particularly that you wrote your own indictment on many of these offences.  That is because when you were arrested in March, after initial denials you decided to make a clean breast of what you had done; this included driving the police around and showing them the homes that you had broken into.  At least half of the offences on the Indictment had not yet been reported to the police, so you really did write your own Indictment on them.  Now that gives you powerful additional mitigation as well as the guilty plea. 

4.        We have also read the letter from the Service Station and we note the difficulties you had on your release; we also note from the reports that you do wish to try and turn your life around.  The Court has, on the other hand, given you chances in the past and you have not taken advantage of them. 

5.        Your advocate very realistically accepts that there is no alternative to prison on this occasion and indeed she does not dispute the conclusion of 4 years.  We think the conclusions are correct.  What we do do, is urge you, as I think you wish to do, to take advantage of the help which is available in prison, both in the drug and alcohol advice you can get there and from other agencies. 

6.        We also, having read the letter from Mr Le Ruez, hope very much that you will be given the maximum support when you are released from prison by the probation Service and others to assist you in trying to return to life in the community. 

7.        Nevertheless for these offences there is no alternative to prison so the sentence of the Court is as moved for by the Crown.  All sentences to be concurrent, Count 1; 12 months, Count 2: 2 years, Count 3: 2 years, Count 4: 2 years, Count 5; 1 year, Count 6; 2 years, Count 7; 4 years, Count 8; 3 years, Count 9; 3 years, Count 10; 2 years, Count 11; 3 years, Count 12; 2 years, Count 13; 4 years, Count 14; 1 month, Count 15; 2 years, Count 16; 4 years, Count 17; 2 years, Count 18; 2 years, Count 19: 2 years, Count 20; 3 years, Count 21; 3 years, Count 22; 2 years, Count 23; 3 months, and Count 24; 2 years; all of those concurrent, so that makes a total of 4 years' imprisonment. 

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (Third Edition).

AG v Da Silva 1997/218.

AG v Moreira [2003] JRC 083A.

AG v Falle 1991/189.

AG v Falle [2006] JRC 096.

AG v Falle [2009] JRC 119.

AG v Falle [2013] JRC 109.