Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Illegal entry and larceny

[2019]JRC147

Royal Court

(Samedi)

26 July 2019

The Attorney General

-v-

Jose Manuel Mendonca De Sousa

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  40. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

In the afternoon on 12^th June, 2018, the defendant entered an unoccupied property through a window he knew would be unlocked.  On entering the property he stole cash to the value of £2,100 contained inside a beaker stored inside a kitchen cupboard.  The defendant knew there would be money there as the property was owned by friends of his.

When the homeowners returned home later that day, the police were called.  Only a handful of people knew there was cash kept inside the beaker, with the defendant being one of those people.  The defendant's fingerprints were located on the outside window and television near the point of entry, cell site data from the defendant's mobile phone placed the defendant in the vicinity of the address and at the time of the offence.  A guilty plea was only entered just prior to trial.  He admitted that he was in the vicinity of the address on the morning of the offence and returned in the afternoon where he broke in and stole the money due to financial difficulties as a result of the prognosis of his terminally ill wife.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea albeit entered late and good character.  Ex-wife terminally ill and teenage children. 

Previous Convictions:

One conviction for drug offences

Conclusions:

Compensation order sought in the sum of £1,600. 

No order for costs sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court found they were able to depart from a custodial sentence as an act of mercy for the extraordinary circumstances in the case.  The Court emphasised that the defendant deserved to go to prison

Compensation order made in favour of the victims in the sum of £1,600 to be paid by way of £100 per month over 16 months or 4 months' imprisonment in default. 

C. M. M. Yates Esq., Crown Advocate. 

Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE Bailliff:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on one count on the Indictment which is that you illegally entered premises in June last year and stole cash to the value of £2,100.  The circumstance of that theft were that you were aware that the occupiers of that house had that sum of money on the premises, being aware of that because they are friends of yours.  You breached that trust, you went to the premises and you stole the money.  You have given us your reason for doing that, that you were under pressure at your work and that there is also some pressure in supporting your wife who is terminally ill and your children with her who are teenagers.

2.        You entered a very late guilty plea, having pleaded not guilty to start with, and the Crown suggests that a 25% discount ought to be awarded to you instead of the usual one third because of the late guilty plea.  We think that you are entitled to credit for the guilty plea and that it should not be at the full rate because it was entered so late.

3.        We accept many of the submissions which Advocate Gollop has put to us in relation to the length of the custodial sentence because, as he accepted, the custodial sentence is right in principle here, and he suggested that the right term might have been between 18 and 24 months' imprisonment.

4.        Having regard to all the circumstances of the offence and having regard to your good character and lack of record we think that the right sentence would have been 18 months' imprisonment.  The reason we say that, we just want to emphasise this, is that it is not so much the question of money which is involved, it is the violation of the people whose property you entered; and that is so apparent when we look at the victim personal statement here, that your offence has had a serious effect on the victim and on the family, because the security which everyone ought to feel in their home has been violated and you are responsible for that.

5.        We are not going to send you to prison, only as an act of mercy in the light of the serious illness of your wife whom you have supported despite being separated, and because of the effect on the two children who will also need support.  I emphasise that you deserve to go to prison, and it is only an act of mercy in these extraordinary circumstances.

6.        So taking the right sentence, as we think it would have been, of 18 months' imprisonment, we are going to sentence you to 240 hours' Community Service which must be served, and if it is not served then the sentence that would be imposed is 18 months imprisonment, you would be brought back to court and sentenced again if you do not perform that community service.

7.        We also order you to pay compensation to the victims in the sum of £1,600 and there will be a default sentence of 4 months' imprisonment if you do not pay it.  We recognise that you may not be able to pay it immediately and we think that £100 a month ought to be manageable and therefore you have 16 months to pay it, but you should pay at £100 a month and the order is that you pay it at that rate and if you miss a payment then you will be liable to the default sentence.  It is right therefore that you pay special attention to that.  If there comes a particular month where for whatever reason you cannot afford the £100, and if you do nothing you will be going to prison.  So, it will be up to you to make an application to the Court for an extension of time, which may or may not be granted, it depends on the circumstances. 

8.        That is the sentence, 240 hours' Community Service, 18 months will be the imprisonment sentence if you default, plus the compensation order as I have indicated. 

Authorities

Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994

AG-v-Da Silva [1997] JLR Note 14a

AG v Da Silva [1997] JRC 218

AG-v-Moreira [2003] JRC 083A

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing - extract