Jersey Unreported Judgments

Superior Number Sentencing - Illegal entry - larceny

[2019]JRC062

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 April 2019

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Crill, Olsen, Ramsden, Dulake and Averty

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 11^th January, 2019, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

First Indictment

1 count of:

Illegal entry with Intent (Count 1).

Second Indictment

3 counts of:

Illegal entry and larceny (Count 1, 2, 5).

Age:  45. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

First Indictment

At approximately 06:45am on Sunday 13^th May, 2018, the victim was sleeping in her bed when she was awoken by the defendant entering her bedroom.  He swore upon seeing her and immediately left the room.  The victim then reported the matter to the police.  CCTV showed the defendant walking towards the victim's home around the time of the incident.  A take-away style cup left at the property tested positive for the defendant's DNA. 

 

Second Indictment

Count 1 - On 15^th May, 2018, the occupier of a property on Roseville Street returned home to discover that he was missing a box of prescribed co-codamol tablets and two watches.  Entry to his flat was gained through an insecure window at the rear of the property and a footprint was recovered from a wall-mounted heater just inside the property.  Footprint analysis of the mark left on the heater concluded that it could have been made by a Reebok classic trainer (like those subsequently found to belong to the defendant).  The missing watches were later recovered from an outbuilding at the property where the defendant was a tenant until two days before his arrest. 

 

Count 2 - The occupiers of the property were asleep at their home when the defendant entered at around 5:30am on 16^th May, 2018.  The patio doors were later found opened and the back gate not closed properly.  The defendant stole various items including a purse, a wallet, several bankcards and cash.  CCTV showed the defendant walking towards the victims' address and later returning around the time of the incident. 

 

Count 5 - The occupiers were not home from 17^th - 21^st May, 2018, one of them having been admitted to the hospital.  The defendant illegally entered their home and stole an envelope containing £700 in cash and a wristwatch. 

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas, albeit rather later in respect of the single count on the First Indictment.  Letter of remorse to the Court and the victims. 

 

Previous Convictions:

Extensive criminal record including 120 offences, 65 of which were for theft and kindred offences.  Current offences part of crime spree.  Offences committed when the defendant was under the influence of drugs.  Entry into bedroom of sleeping woman especially. 

 

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:

5 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 2:	5 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 5 years' imprisonment. 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

First Indictment

Count 1:

4 years' imprisonment.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 4 years' imprisonment. 

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

Advocate G. N. A. Pearce for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced for what may reasonably be described as a spree of offending comprising one count of illegal entry with intent and three counts of illegal entry and larceny, occurring between the 13^th May and 17^th May, 2018.  The counts that in many ways must have been the most frightening for the victims are those where they were present in their homes when you entered.  The two other offences, including as they do the left of personal items as well as money from people's homes, would inevitably have been distressing to them.  People are entitled to feel not only that they are safe in their own home but that their home itself is a safe place to store their possessions.

2.        You were last before this Court on 28^th September, 2015, where at that time you answered to counts of illegal entry and larceny as well as a number of other counts of a similar type.  Indeed, you committed the current offending very shortly after your release and you have a very poor record and appear to have made little attempt to address your offending successfully.

3.        We agree with the Crown that the fact that you committed these offences whilst under the influence of drugs is an aggravating and not a mitigating factor and we also take the view that the fact that two of the dwellings in questions were occupied also increases the seriousness as we have suggested.  It might not be quite correct to say that it is the equivalent of entering at night, but this took place on both occasions at a time in the earlier part of the morning when you might have reasonably anticipated that the homes would be occupied by their residents, in other words people would be at home.

4.        You were not initially helpful to the police but you have pleaded guilty and you are entitled to the benefit of that plea by way of mitigation, and we have listened carefully to the mitigation advanced on your behalf by your counsel and of course have read with care your letter of remorse.  We cannot however overlook the effect that this offending has had on your victims and we note that you are assessed as presenting a high risk of reoffending in the Social Enquiry Report.  In essence as has been said, you appear to have adopted this form of acquisitive crime to meet your needs with little if any regard to the effect that your criminality has on your victims and their feelings of security and safety within their own homes.

5.        In the circumstances we do not think that there is any alternative to a material sentence of imprisonment and that that is inevitable, but we also feel that we can reduce the conclusions moved for by the Crown to an extent and this is to reflect the mitigation as we see it.  You are accordingly sentenced as follows: Count 1 on the First Indictment, 4 years' imprisonment; Count 1 on the Second Indictment, 3 years' imprisonment, Count 2 on the Second Indictment, 4 years' imprisonment and Count 5 on the Second Indictment, 3 years' imprisonment, all concurrent making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.

6.        We express the very strong hope that you will receive and receiving will take advantage of all of the help that can be made available to you in the prison in order to address your offending and its causes.

Authorities

Whelan - Aspects of Sentencing, 3^rd Edition (extract)

AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR Note 14a. 

AG v Da Silva [1997] JRC 218. 

R v Brewster and Others [1997] EWCA Crim 3421. 

AG v Moreira [2018] JRC 215. 

AG v Falle [2015] JRC 198A. 

AG v Higham [2017] JRC 199. 

AG v Goncalves and Others [2011] JRC 001.