Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny - obtaining goods by false pretences.

[2015]JRC236

Royal Court

(Samedi)

20 November 2015

The Attorney General

-v-

Sophie Amber Rose Lusk

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

Age:  19.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Whilst out drinking together in St Helier, the victim lent Lusk his debit card in order to buy some drinks.  He also gave her his PIN.  Lusk inadvertently failed to return the card, but on discovering that she still had the card she did not give it back (Count 1).  Instead, Lusk went on a three-day shopping during which she performed 27 transactions using the victim's card, including buying clothes, make up, an iPhone, a meal and twelve rounds of drinks.  She also paid for a tattoo (Count 12) and withdrew cash on two occasions (Counts 4 & 5). 

Lusk was cooperative in interview. 

Details of Mitigation:

Crown: Guilty plea, youth, no dishonesty convictions. 

Defence: urged that Lusk be given a final chance with a non-custodial sentence. 

Previous Convictions:

Nine previous convictions, the most serious of which are the offences for which she received the probation and community service orders.

Conclusions:

Having regard to Lusk's youth, the Crown moved for concurrent sentences in respect of the Indictment and breach offences. 

The Crown saw no reason to depart from the sentence of the equivalent of 24 months' youth detention imposed on the breach offence by the Royal Court at first instance.  Allowance was made for the hours of community service performed. 

Breach of Probation Order and Community Service Orders imposed by the Royal Court on 23 January 2015: 19 months' youth detention, concurrent to the above sentences.

Total: 19 months' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Lusk had already had a number of "last chances".  The Crown had made as much of an allowance as it properly could. 

Conclusions granted.

Probation Order and Community Service Order discharged.

E. L. Hollywood, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE deputy bailiff:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for 31 offences of larceny and the use of a debit card over a three-day period to a total value of approximately £1,600.  You are also to be sentenced for a breach of a Probation Order of 12 months and a 312-hour Community Service Order imposed by the Royal Court in January for possession with intent to supply 40 tablets of MDMA. 

2.        When you were sentenced by the Court (AG-v-Lusk [2015] JRC 015) the Court gave you a warning.  It said:-

"We must just warn you that you must complete the 312 hours' of community service; if you fail to do so you will be brought back to this Court and almost certainly find yourself sentenced to youth detention.  The same point applies in relation to the Probation Order.  You must comply with that order, as you did indeed on the last occasion, and, again if you fail to do so, you will be brought back before us."

3.        Although you have completed 62½ hours of the 312 hours of community service, amounting to some 20%, your performance of community service has been characterised by difficulties and you received a warning from the Solicitor General and from the Chief Probation Officer that if you failed to comply the matter would be returned before Court.  We are not really, then, in a position of considering a last chance as you have had a number of last chances. 

4.        We are fully aware of your background and the background to your offending and the mitigation that is available to you.  That, however, was taken fully into account by the Court when it imposed the sentence on the last occasion and gave you the warning that it did.  You have shown yourself to be unable or unwilling to comply with a non-custodial order of the Court and the Court feels that it is left with no alternative than to impose the custodial alternative. 

5.        We believe that the Crown has made as much of an allowance as it possibly could by way of forbearance in the light of your youth and your other personal circumstances and the mitigation available to you, indeed it would normally be the case that an additional sentence would be imposed in respect of the most recent offences; however we are going to go with the recommendations of the Crown and impose what, to our mind, is the least term of youth detention that we are able to do to reflect the circumstances of this case. 

6.        Accordingly, in respect of Counts 1 to 31 you are sentenced to 9 months' youth detention, concurrent.  For the breach of the order of the Court you are sentenced to 19 months' youth detention, concurrent, making a total of 19 months' youth detention.  You will be subject to a period of supervision on release. 

7.        As a matter of formality we discharge the previous orders. 

Authorities

AG-v-Lusk [2015] JRC 015.

AG v Byrne [2011] JRC 060.

AG v Dauny [2010] JRC 141.

AG v Self [2010] JRC 022.

AG v Knowles [2014] JRC 240.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (3rd edition).