Inferior Number Sentencing - illegal entry and larceny - motoring offences - fraud - larceny.
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Grime and Nicole. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Matthew John Higham
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:
1 count of: |
Illegal entry and larceny (Count 2). |
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 3). |
1 count of: |
Driving while disqualified, contrary to Article 15(4)(b) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 (Count 4). |
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 5). |
1 count of: |
Obtaining a service by fraud (Count 6). |
4 counts of: |
Larceny (Counts 7, 8, 9 and 10). |
1 count of: |
Attempting to obtain a service by fraud (Count 11). |
Age: 49.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The defendant undertook a spree of offending, starting soon after 1am on 28th March, 2017, and not ending until the following afternoon. In the early hours he illegally entered residential premises in Gorey Village near to his address, via an insecure back door. The property is rented by a married couple, and also a lodger. All three were in the premises at that time. The wife was awake nursing her four-month-old daughter. In the early hours she heard a persistent banging from downstairs, and someone 'rummaging around'. She noted the time as being 1:22am, and assumed it was her husband. The break-in was only discovered the following morning.
The defendant stole three guitars, cameras and items of computer equipment. A blue Nissan Micra parked outside the property was also taken. The keys to this vehicle had been inside the kitchen. At 1:43am the defendant's phone was used to make a payment of £1 via Google, which was later found to have come from a credit card in the wife's name (Count 6).
The Nissan Micra was next seen parked on the slipway at Ouasnie Bay with the lights on at approximately 5:30am. Just over an hour later the car had become submerged by the incoming tide. A pink and white mountain bike, which had been left unlocked outside a nearby property by its 12-year-old owner, was stolen at around this time (Count 7).
At 6:45am the defendant is seen on CCTV at the bottom of Mont Les Vaux. At 7:19am he stole a sausage roll from the supermarket (Count 8) and is next seen cycling into Town on the stolen bike, which he left unsecured in Broad Street. Not long after that he stole an iPhone 6S from Airtel (Count 9), and by 12:30pm a Macbook Air laptop was found to be missing from the Power House. It was later recovered from the defendant's room (Count 10) along with the iPhone and the majority of the property stolen from the Gorey property. Finally the credit card was used in an attempt to obtain further services from Google Play for £4.99 but, as the bank had been told of the theft of the card, the transaction was declined (Count 11). The card was never recovered.
The defendant was arrested two days later when police officers conducting house to house enquiries in the area visited the defendant in his room. One guitar which was not located in the defendant's room was later recovered from a nearby beach, having been found buried in the sand by a member of the public using a metal detector.
In interview the defendant said that he had nothing to do with a break and entry or stealing a car. He stated that he had been in his room on the evening, playing a game called Kingdoms of War on his mobile phone.
When asked about the stolen property recovered from his room, the defendant said it had been left by two men he met on the street, but he had no contact details for them.
Officers attempted to arrange further interviews, but he refused to attend.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea albeit late in the day.
Previous Convictions:
83 previous convictions, including larceny, breaking and entering, driving disqualified and driving uninsured.
Conclusions:
Count 2: |
3½ years' imprisonment. |
Count 3: |
3 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for a period of 60 months, concurrent. |
Count 4: |
6 months' imprisonment, and disqualification from driving for a period of 60 months, concurrent. |
Count 5: |
12 months' imprisonment disqualification from driving for a period of 60 months, concurrent. |
Count 6: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 7: |
9 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 8: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 9: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 10: |
12 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Count 11: |
1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 3½ years' imprisonment and disqualified from holding, obtaining and driving for a period of 5 years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate M. P. Boothman for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1. You are to be sentenced today for ten counts on the Indictment which reflect a variety of offences which the Crown, accurately in our view, have characterised as a spree of offending. It all took place on 28th March, 2017, between 1am and 4pm and the offences range from illegal entry and larceny, taking and driving away a motor vehicle, driving whilst disqualified and with no insurance, obtaining and attempting to obtain services by fraud and four counts of larceny.
2. We do not need to go into the details of this offending as these have been set out fully in the summary of facts which have been read out to us by the Crown. The most serious of the offending is, of course, the illegal entry at night of a private dwelling and the larceny of items from it. Illegal entry of a private dwelling is always viewed by the court as very serious as it involves a violation of a person's home which is, for most people, a place of perceived safety and sanctuary.
3. We have read the victim impact statements from the two individuals who occupy the dwelling that you broke into and we well see how, particularly in the circumstances of one of the occupants who was a nursing mother, how such an act would have had a serious and worrying effect on them and their sense of security.
4. You have committed all these offences with no apparent regard to your victims and to what they have lost as a result. There is no mitigation to be found in your record as you are a prolific offender with many similar previous convictions. You have not cooperated with the Probation Service and this is as clear an indication as any, were one necessary, that a non-custodial disposal of this matter is not a realistic option for us. You do not have the benefit of youth.
5. You have, of course, pleaded guilty and you are entitled to some credit for that. It is difficult to see this however as an indication of full remorse because it came late in the day and the victims of your offending, particularly the occupants of the dwelling, were having to wait for a long time to know whether they were to give evidence in this Court. There appears to us, as is set out in the statements before us, a pattern to your offending to which you initially deny culpability and are ultimately found guilty or admit it. We make an appropriate allowance for your guilty plea but in the circumstances we cannot see this as justifying a full one-third.
6. We have noted all that your counsel has said on your behalf. He has said all that could properly be said. We suspect that you were under the influence of the medication that you were taking when you committed these offences but you knew the effect that this medication had on you when taken to excess. Nonetheless you took it to excess in the light of that knowledge.
7. Having taken all of that into account we agree with the Crown that this matter should be dealt with as an extended incident and therefore you should receive concurrent sentences. We are concerned, of course, to reflect not only the sentence appropriate to illegal entry but to reflect the overall criminality involved in this matter.
8. In our view, taking totality into account we believe that the Crown is correct in its assessment and we impose the following sentences. With regard to Count 2; 3½ years' imprisonment, Count 3; 3 months' imprisonment, Count 4; 6 months' imprisonment, Count 5; 12 months' imprisonment, Count 6; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 7; 9 months' imprisonment, Count 8; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 9; 12 months' imprisonment, Count 10; 12 months' imprisonment and Count 11; 1 month's imprisonment, all of those concurrent making a total of 3½ years' imprisonment. The Court agrees that you should be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence in connection with Counts 3, 4 and 5 for a period of 60 months', each concurrent, making a total of 60 months or 5 years disqualification.
Authorities
AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218.
R-v-Brewster and Others [1998] 1 Cr App R (S) 181.
Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey (3rd Edition).
Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956.
Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) 1948.