Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Cox and Quinn [2020] JRC 139 (10 July 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2020/2020_139.html
Cite as: [2020] JRC 139
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
A. J. Olsen, Lieutenant Bailiff of Jersey and Jurats Ramsden and Austin-Vautier |
The Attorney General
-v-
Luke Clint Cox
Michael Anthony Quinn
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
Luke Clint Cox
|
3 counts of: |
Illegal entry and larceny (Count 1, Count 2 and Count 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Illegal entry with intent to commit a crime (Count 4). |
|
1 count of: |
Obtaining property by false pretences (Count 5). |
|
1 count of: |
Obtaining services by false pretences (Count 6). |
|
1 count of: |
Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978 (Count 7). |
Age: 33.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
Quinn was resident at Almorah Crescent, Upper Kings Cliff. Cox lived with him at the relevant time.
In the early hours of Saturday 4th January 2020, the defendants illegally entered a ground-floor apartment on Upper Kings Cliff, St. Helier, whilst the resident victim was asleep. She was disturbed by the sound of rustling, mumbling voices and flashes of light. She heard two voices, and heard one say: "This is the one." She shouted and jumped out of bed to find her front door wide open. She saw a man running down the driveway toward the main road and then noticed that the window to her kitchen was wide open and the bottom sash fully pushed up. Her iPhone, iPad and MacBook laptop had been stolen (Count 3).
Later that morning, the resident of a nearby property returned to his house and noticed that the house had been disturbed. A television, PlayStation, Skybox, bottles of alcohol, a purse and a coin collection had been stolen, amongst other items (Count 1). A debit card had also been stolen and used by the defendants to make several contactless transactions that morning, at various shops (Count 5) and on a Liberty Bus (Count 6).
The Police, having been notified of a theft in the area, attended another property having seen that the patio door was open. The resident, who had been at home the previous evening, had noticed that several doors to the property were open. Items had been moved and some leads disconnected from a mounted television. A black hard drive, a black wallet containing a small amount of cash and the remote for a television were missing (Count 2).
The Police continued to investigate and contacted the resident of a further property, a house with an attached garage. The victim reported that there was no damage to the garage or anything missing; but a digital safe had been moved from its original position (Count 4).
A footwear mark, forensically examined, and likely to match a trainer worn by Cox, was found inside the property relating to Count 3.
Police attended Quinn's address where Quinn was arrested at the door, and Cox was found hiding behind the bed. An Atlantis Swipe card (in the name of the victim of Count 1) was found in Quinn's trouser pocket. A large amount of stolen property was recovered from Quinn's address as well as cannabis (Count 7).
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea. Troubled background, extensive history of substance misuse. Assessed as having psychiatric disorders.
Previous Convictions:
20 convictions for over 150 offences, including several for break and entry, larceny and fraud offences.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
3 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 2: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
4 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 4: |
2 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
1 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
1 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 7: |
1 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 4 years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
Michael Anthony Quinn
|
3 counts of: |
Illegal entry and larceny (Count 1, Count 2 and Count 3). |
|
1 count of: |
Obtaining property by false pretences (Count 5). |
|
1 count of: |
Obtaining services by false pretences (Count 6). |
Age: 29.
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Cox above.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea. After initially denying offences, made admissions in interview and was co-operative. Unsettled upbringing, alcohol and substance abuse. Assessed as having personality disorder.
Previous Convictions:
4 convictions, but none for offences of this nature.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
2 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 2: |
3 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 3: |
3 years' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 5: |
1 months' imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 6: |
1 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 3 years' imprisonment.
Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs sought.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
R. C. P. Pedley Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. C. Gollop for the Defendant Cox.
Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant Quinn.
JUDGMENT
THE lieutenant BAILIFF:
1. In this case the Court has had the benefit of elegantly detailed Social Enquiry Reports in respect of both defendants, and lengthy and detailed psychological and psychiatric reports in relation to you both as well. We have read all these reports carefully and we have listened to all that defence counsel have said to us on your behalves equally carefully. They have both made powerful addresses.
2. It is clear beyond peradventure that you both have serious problems, and that you Mr Cox in particular endured a very difficult and troubled childhood and adolescence. Indeed you have both been troubled men in your adult lives as well, as is witnessed by your substance abuse, self-harming behaviours, thoughts of suicide and prolific criminal offending. The Court has a deal of sympathy with you and has striven to take all these matters into account when considering the appropriate sentence.
3. We have mentioned your criminal records. Yours, Mr Quinn, is, on any view, a poor one, but it has been pointed out to us on your behalf that this is your first conviction for offences of this nature. In your case, Mr Cox, we can do no better than adopt the wording of paragraph 34 of the Social Enquiry Report where it reads:
"Mr Cox has a lengthy and unenviable criminal record. His pattern of offending includes dishonesty, motoring offences, public disorder, malicious damage, and drug convictions. He has been dealt with by all the possible options available to the Court and has served several custodial sentences"
...
"...Mr Cox has 29 previous offences of break and entry, illegal entry or larceny. This has included domestic and non-domestic properties and demonstrates an established pattern of dishonesty"
4. We note that your criminal record runs to some 19 pages and for a man aged only 33 such a record is, as the report indicates, "unenviable". We mention these matters not because we intend to punish you both afresh for having records, but to make it clear that there can be no allowance made for previous good character. But we do take account of the fact, Mr Quinn, as we have said, that this is your first appearance before the Court for offences of this type. You both appear to realise at some level that you must be punished for what you have done. These were mean and nasty acquisitive offences committed during the Christmas season. A season supposedly of good will. A person's home, as you have acknowledged in your letter to us, Mr Quinn, should be his or her place of safety, security and sanctuary. To have one's home violated is a dreadful thing to endure and this is what you did, four times in one night.
5. In the case of one of the homes you violated the occupant was present. In the statement of Victim 3, which we hope you have read, she says this:
"Early in the morning of 4 January 2020, I was woken up by sounds of movement and men's voices in my flat. It took me a minute to realise what was happening. My home was being invaded. I felt completely shocked, very angry and for want of a better word, violated to see my home had been ransacked.
I'm a very independent person. I live alone and have always been happy to do so. However, this incident has triggered something in me that wasn't there before: fear in my own home.
Things that go bump in the night never phased me; neither did a seagull squawking or someone shouting in the street, or a car horn going off. That's changed now. I seem to be scared of my own shadow. Any noise that can't be explained, I feel that freeze of fear ...
At home, I have all my windows shut even in the day when I am here. They broke in when I was home so why couldn't it be done again? I find have become a little OCD with checking locks on windows and doors. I always felt so safe living here, but now it's different. ... I haven't slept properly since the event and find myself getting up several times in the night just to double check that windows and doors are locked.
I keep telling myself it could have been so much worse and I'm grateful for that. However, I wonder if, the men involved would ever think how much they could change a person, for just a few minutes of their time? I really hope that they will one day realise the upset to people's lives they have caused. Not just to me, but to their other victims as well".
6. We have been referred to the case of R v Brewster [1997] EWCA Crim 3421 where it was stated that:
"The loss of material possessions is, however, only part (and often a minor part) of the reason why domestic burglary is a serious offence. Most people, perfectly legitimately, attach importance to the privacy and security of their own homes. That an intruder should break in or enter, for his own dishonest purposes, leaves the victim with a sense of violation and insecurity. Even where the victim is unaware, at the time, that the burglar is in the house, it can be a frightening experience to learn that a burglary has taken place; and it is all the more frightening if the victim confronts or hears the burglar."
7. We take into account your guilty pleas and give you full credit for those, and as we have said we have listened carefully to everything that has been said on your behalves; your counsel could not have said more for you than they did. But when all is said and done, this was serious offending and custodial sentences are inevitable. In a powerful address to us Advocate Gollop urged us to take what he called "a left-field course" and to adjourn sentencing so that a suitable placement could be found for Mr Cox in the UK where he might receive appropriate treatment for his complex needs. Our difficulty with that submission, no matter how powerfully or eloquently put, is that it is unsupported by the extensive psychiatric and psychological evidence that is before us. The Court has therefore declined to accept that invitation, but it is mindful of the excellent facilities that will be available to you at HMP La Moye.
8. We feel that the Crown has moved, Advocate Harrison, for a sufficient disparity between the two defendants. The conclusions of the Crown are therefore granted in respect of you both.
9. Mr Cox, on Count 1 there will be a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment. On Count 2, 4 years' imprisonment and Count 3, also 4 years' imprisonment. Count 4, 2 years' imprisonment; Count 5, 1 month; Count 6, 1 week; Count 7, 1 week, all concurrent so that makes 4 years' imprisonment.
10. Mr Quinn, Count 1, 2 years' imprisonment; Count 2, 3 years' imprisonment; Count 3, 3 years' imprisonment; Count 5, 1 month; Count 6, 1 month, all concurrent, total 3 years' imprisonment.
11. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the cannabis.
12. We also order by consent that the psychological and psychiatric reports may be disclosed to the States of Jersey Prison Service, the Alcohol and Drug Service and Adult Mental Health Services.
13. Mr Cox, Mr Quinn, we want to say to you that it gives us no pleasure to sentence young men like you to substantial terms of imprisonment. We do so in sorrow and not in anger, but you cannot carry on like this. If you do the sentences will just keep on getting longer and longer and the future will hold nothing but despair for you. We urge you to grasp with both hands the opportunities that will be available to you for therapy and treatment during your sentences. Nowadays imprisonment is as much if not more about education and therapy than punishment. It can be the making of people. Make today a new start. You may be entering HMP La Moye as criminals now, but we earnestly hope to see you released as citizens.
Authorities
R v Brewster [1997] EWCA Crim 3421.
AG v Cox [2018] JRC 231
AG v Moreira [2018] JRC 215
AG v Cox [2018] JRC 094A
AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR Note14a