Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - larceny - motoring offences - failing to provide a specimen when required - conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

[2016]JRC207

Royal Court

(Samedi)

11 November 2016

Before     :

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Thomas and Ronge

The Attorney General

-v-

Barry John Picot

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

1 count of:	Larceny (Count 1).
1 count of:	Taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other lawful authority, contrary to Article 53(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 2).
1 count of:	Driving while disqualified, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 3).
1 count of:	Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 (Count 4).
1 count of:	Failing without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of blood or urine when required to do so, contrary to Article 30(7), as amended, of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 5).
1 count of:	Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace (Count 6).

Age:  31.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

In the early hours of Friday 22^nd July, the defendant, a disqualified driver without insurance, stole a Toyota pick-up truck and a speedboat on a trailer from La Collette Marina in St Helier and drove them to La Mare slipway at Grève D'Azette, St Clement.  He drove the vehicle down the beach to the waterline where he left it while he attempted to launch the boat.  The tide was coming in quickly and it gradually submerged the vehicle.  The defendant managed to start the engine of the speedboat before it cut out and the boat began to drift out to sea.  The defendant jumped fully clothed into the water, suffered an asthma attack and began to panic and scream for help.  A man who was out running, ran into the sea to save him while his friend called sea rescue and an ambulance.  The defendant's rescuer managed to swim with him back to the boat and haul him in.  By this time the defendant was struggling to breathe and not talking any sense.  The defendant was taken by ambulance to hospital where he was given oxygen and treated in the Intensive Care and High Dependency Units.  Whilst there, the Force Medical Examiner judged him unfit to drive through drink or drugs and the police requested, via his treating physician, a sample of blood for analysis.  The defendant refused.  The vehicle was not salvageable and the loss to the owner was calculated to be £4,000.  The cost of repairs to the speedboat, which was new to the owner and had not yet been registered and insured, was £1,300. 

The defendant remained in hospital for observation and his clothing was seized by the police.  During the afternoon, he discharged himself and was later found by the police in town in his hospital gown and pyjama bottoms.  The defendant was transported back to hospital where staff advised that he did not need to be readmitted and he was arrested. 

In interview, attended by an Appropriate Adult, the defendant originally denied that he had stolen the vehicle and boat, claiming that he had permission from the owners to borrow them to carry out a "drugs run" to Carteret, to collect drugs in order to repay a drugs debt.  The Crown accepted that this was a fanciful story with no basis in fact.  The defendant subsequently claimed that his actions were a cry for help and that he had removed the bung from the speedboat causing it to sink, thinking he "might as well just end it now". 

Count 6 related to the defendant's hostile and aggressive behaviour on 5^th July towards staff at Evans House, St Helier, where he was residing at the time.  Having been asked to leave because of his disruptive behaviour, the defendant demanded all his medication and repayment of his rent, became agitated and verbally threatening when refused and lunged at a member of staff as though to punch him. 

The current offences were committed in breach of a six months' Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court in June 2016 for threatening, abusive or disorderly conduct. 

Details of Mitigation:

Early guilty pleas; the defendant nearly drowned and continued to suffer health problems, including possible brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation; difficult background; history of psychological problems; a willingness to engage with other agencies and motivation to work with them; support of his girlfriend and foster parents, time already spent on remand. 

Previous Convictions:

216 previous offences dealt with on 32 appearances before Island and UK courts, of which 131 motoring offences including 29 driving without insurance, 20 driving while disqualified, 13 taking and driving away, and 3 offences of driving while under the influence or failing to provide a specimen for analysis.  Also several convictions for offences of dishonesty, theft, violence, disorderly conduct and damage to property and many relating to breaches of probation and court orders.  One drugs conviction for possession of cannabis. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	18 month imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive.
Count 6:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 8^th June 2016: 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. 

Disqualification from driving sought for a period of 5 years from date of sentence.

Total: 27 months' imprisonment plus disqualification from driving for a period of 5 years from date of sentence. 

Compensation Order sought in the sum of £4,000. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court noted that the defendant had spent most of his adult life in prison, and the Forensic Psychologists' conclusion that he would remain at high risk of offending unless he engaged with "intensive expert intervention in a residential therapeutic community in order to address his complex behavioural and psychological difficulties."

The defendant clearly needed help and the Court decided that the public would expect it to be more creative in trying to address the underlying issues in an attempt to break the cycle of reoffending. 

The defendant had already served the equivalent of five and a half months' imprisonment whilst on remand and for that reason the Court felt able to impose a Probation Order with conditions:-

Count 1:	18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis.
Count 2:	18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, concurrent.
Count 3:	18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, concurrent.
Count 4:	18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, concurrent.
Count 5:	18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, concurrent.
Count 6:	18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, concurrent.

Breach of Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court on 8^th June 2016: Discharge existing Probation Order and replace with 18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, concurrent. 

Total: 18 month Probation Order with condition to appear in Court with the Attorney General on a quarterly basis.  (First review in 3 months' time, February 2017). 

1.      The defendant to comply with and attend any appointments arranged with other agencies;

2.      The defendant to comply with and attend any appointments with the Alcohol and Drugs Service as required by his Probation Officer; and

3.      The defendant to submit to random tests as may be required by his Probation Officer.

Disqualification from driving ordered for a period of 5 years from date of sentence (11^th November, 2016). 

No Compensation Order made. 

C. R. Baglin, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for the theft of a car and boat with associated road traffic offences and for one unconnected offence of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, which took place some weeks earlier at Evans House where he had become verbally threatening towards the manager to the point where the police had to be called. 

2.        Turning to the theft of the car and the boat, after an argument with his girlfriend, the defendant left their home saying he was going for walk to calm down.  Instead he was seen on CCTV at about 5:37am driving a Toyota double car pick-up and towing a speed boat on a trailer which he had taken from La Collette Marina compound.  He was a disqualified driver and driving therefore without insurance.  He drove to La Mare slip and down to the sea where he was seen launching the boat.  He managed to start the boat engine but it stopped after a short distance, some fifty metres out to sea.  Having taken the bung out of the boat so that it was starting to take in water, he then himself got into the water fully dressed and was seen to be panicking.  A passer-by, who was not a good swimmer, swam out to rescue him; he said that the defendant looked as if he was about to give up, although he was still conscious and talking rubbish. 

3.        It is clear to us that the defendant was close to drowning.  His rescuer was too far from the shore to swim them both back and he managed instead to get them both onto the boat where he awaited the arrival of the Lifeboat.  In the meantime the Toyota had become completely submerged by the incoming tide.  Because the key had been left inside by the owner it was uninsured with a loss therefore to the owner of some £4,000 and the boat sustained damage to its owner of some £1,300. 

4.        The defendant was taken to A & E where he was seen by a police officer and the force medical examiner on suspicion of being unfit to drive and he refused to give a blood sample.  The defendant remained in hospital for most of the day but then discharged himself.  He was found by a police officer standing on a corner of Vauxhall Street in his hospital gown and pyjama bottoms. 

5.        In interview the defendant claimed that he had been given permission to take the boat to go to Carteret to do a drugs run and this in order to clear a large debt, a fanciful account with no basis in fact.  Later he said he had taken the bung out of the boat because he wanted to be rescued so that he could get help and, quoting from him, "with everything". 

6.        The defendant is a prolific offender with some 32 previous convictions relating to 216 offences, the majority relating to illegal motoring, theft and violent offending.  He has breached all previous Probation and Community Service Orders.  His record includes 29 offences for driving without insurance, 20 offences of driving whilst disqualified, 13 offences of taking and driving away and 3 offences of driving whilst under the influence of drink.  The current offences were committed in breach of a Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court in June 2016 for threatening, abusive and disorderly conduct which took place in a crowded MacDonald's restaurant. 

7.        Whilst being sentenced on 17^th October, 2014, for motoring offences and violently resisting arrest, again committed in breach of earlier Probation Orders, the Court noted that this defendant has spent most of his adult life in prison, but in that case it felt it had no option to impose a custodial sentence in order to protect the public and the police. 

8.        The defendant has a history of substance misuse and serious anti-social and psychological problems which include self-injurious behaviours.  Whilst he has no diagnosis of any mental health illness, Dr Emsley's report identifies depressive, negativistic clinical personality patterns together with anxiety, post-traumatic stress, borderline personality and bipolar disorder.  He is assessed at a very high risk of reoffending which will continue, she advises, without intensive expert intervention in a residential therapeutic community where his complex behavioural and psychological difficulties can be assessed.  He has been reluctant to engage in any such assessment and absent any mental health diagnosis, he cannot be required to do so. 

9.        The defendant would seem to have no real friends and is socially isolated save for his relationship with his girlfriend, who herself appears to be vulnerable, and for whose wellbeing there is some concern.  It is felt that there is an element of co-dependency in their relationship. 

10.      As the social enquiry report says a custodial sentence will provide the public with protection for the period of that sentence but not thereafter and after his release there is no formal mechanism to encourage him to remain drug-free, which he is at the moment, having been in custody for some time, and to moderate his behaviour. 

11.      He is not suitable for community service and a detailed work plan for a potential 12 month Probation Order is likely to be unobtainable.  The purpose of any community supervision, we are advised by the Probation Department, would be to work on some of the cognitive processes he goes through when he offends but mainly to provide barriers regarding his offending.  We are advised that any community order would be high-risk. 

12.      The Court against this background is then faced with imposing yet another sentence upon a defendant who clearly needs help.  While the public need protection, and we have not lost sight of the fact that his actions have caused financial loss to the car and boat owners, we think the public would expect us to be more creative and to try and address his underlying issues or at least make some progress in doing so and this in an attempt to break the cycle.  We accept that imposing a Probation Order is high risk but the defendant has, in fact, served a sentence which is equivalent to 5 months and 12 days, and because of that, we are therefore going to impose probation Orders. 

13.      In relation to Count 1 you are sentenced to 18 months' probation, Count 2; 18 months' probation, Count 3; 18 months' probation, Count 4; 18 months' probation, Count 5; 18 months' probation and Count 6; 18 months' probation and for the breach of the Probation Order; 18 months' probation and we discharge the existing Probation Order.  We also disqualify you from driving for a period of 5 years from the date of this sentence.  Those sentences obviously to be served concurrently. 

14.      Mr Picot, in relation to the probation Order that we are imposing upon you, there are three conditions which we need to make clear. 

(i)        That you will comply and attend any appointments arranged with other agencies as are deemed appropriate by the probation officer;

(ii)       That you will comply and attend the Alcohol and Drugs Service as directed by the probation officer; and

(iii)      That you will submit to random tests for analysis for use of drugs as may be required by the probation officer.

We understand that you will accept those conditions. 

15.      In addition we are going to order that the Attorney General refers this matter to the Royal Court every quarter so that, in the presence of the defendant, the Court can monitor his compliance with the conditions that have been imposed under the Probation Order and his progress; and this on the basis that this requirement can be reviewed by the Court. 

16.      Finally Mr Picot, having imposed a Probation Order against you, you must understand that you are going to be brought back before this Court every quarter for us to review how you are progressing and if you are in breach of any of the conditions that have been imposed, then you will almost certainly be put in prison for the offences you have been committed.  Do you understand that? 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-McIntyre [1999] JLR N 16d.

R-v-Hardy [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 4.

AG-v-McCool [2000] JLR Note 63b.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077.

AG-v-Picot [2014] JRC 200.

AG-v-Brown [2000] JLR N 57A.

AG-v-Picot [2011] JRC 106.