Jersey Unreported Judgments

Breach of Community Service Order.

[2022]JRC041

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 February 2022

The Attorney General

W

Crown Advocate L. B. Hallam.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for the Defendant.   

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant has been referred to the Court by the Attorney General for his failure to comply with a Community Service Order imposed upon him on the 12^th February 2021, reduced to 180 hours on appeal, which is the equivalent of 12 months' youth detention, and this for offences of larceny, carrying an offensive weapon and a number of lesser offences.  The facts of that offending is set out in the judgment of the Royal Court of the 12^th February 2021, (AG v Z and Y [2021] JRC 044). 

2.        The defendant commenced his work placement on the 19^th July 2021, delayed through no fault of his, and by the 18^th September 2021 had completed 65 hours.  Working from the report of Mr Le Marrec as summarised in Crown Advocate Hallam's skeleton argument, on 25^th September 2021 the defendant left his work party at Grand Vaux Youth Centre of his own volition.  Mr Le Marrec states that he had been unwilling to accept supervision to perform work as directed or to use the tools correctly. 

3.        A compliance meeting took place on 1^st October 2021 when the defendant apologised for his behaviour and accepted that it had been unacceptable.  He was warned about binge drinking at the weekend which had been reported to the Probation Officer.  The defendant was reinstated on the scheme and completed a further five hours the following day.

4.        On 9^th October 2021 the defendant reported to his work party hungover; he was dismissed.  On 15^th October 2021 there was a further compliance meeting.  The defendant was polite and cooperative and said he had learnt his lesson.  The defendant was on crutches following a motorcycle accident and provided a medical certificate showing he was unfit for work until 20^th November 2021.

5.        On the 20^th November 2021, the defendant reported for his work group at Samares but he was removed from the session for failing to accept supervision.  He had been warned three times about disruptive behaviour and throwing clods of soil.  When a Community Service employee arrived to fetch him, the defendant was being disruptive.  He said that the scheme "was fucking shit" and said he was going to make a complaint about the supervisors.  He was given information as to how do so. 

6.        Finally, on the 26^th November 2021 there was a meeting to discuss the events of the 20^th November 2021.  The defendant said he had been bullied by Community Service supervisors.  Mr Le Marrec explained the difference between bullying and the supervision offered on the scheme.  The defendant became animated and left the office. 

7.        This history as set out by Mr Le Marrec in his report is not contested by the defendant and he admits that he is in breach of the Community Service Order.  Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service Order) (Jersey) Law 2001 provides as follows: -

"If it is proved to the satisfaction of the court before which the offender appears or is brought or to which the offender is committed that the offender has failed to comply with any obligation under Article 5, the court may -

(a)       continue the order, with or without variation and with or without the imposition of a fine; or

(b)       revoke the order and deal with the offence in respect of which the order was made, in any manner in which the offender could have been dealt with for that offence by the court which made the order."

8.        The defendant has completed 70 hours Community Service and therefore has 61% of the hours ordered left to complete which equates to 7 months' youth detention.

9.        The defendant is now 18 and the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 continue to apply to him.  Article 4(2) of that law provides as follows: -

"(2)     A court shall not pass a sentence of youth detention unless -

(b)        ... it considers that no other method of dealing with the person is appropriate because it appears to the court that -

(i)         the person has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them..."

10.      That is the only relevant part of that law for these purposes.  The defendant does now have a history of failure to respond to a non-custodial penalty and the issue is whether he is either unable or unwilling to respond to them. 

11.      There is no question in our view in his ability to undertake Community Service and so we are concerned with his willingness to do so.  The Probation Service remain willing to supervise him should he persuade the Court that he is willing to comply. 

12.      There is no authority in what is meant by the words "unwilling to respond to them", but in our view it is not just a question of the defendant stating his willingness to complete his Community Service, notwithstanding his history of non-compliance with the Community Service Order.  The Court must take into account that history in order to reach a view as to whether, objectively, the defendant is willing and has shown willingness to complete it. 

13.      It is a condition of Community Service that the defendant involved performs the work given to him to the satisfaction of the relevant officer, and it is essential to the viability of the scheme that this obligation is complied with.  In this case the defendant has shown himself unwilling to accept supervision on a number of occasions and indeed has displayed an attitude of contempt. 

14.      It would have been helpful to the Court if the defendant had written to the Court explaining his behaviour and trying to persuade us that he will now comply.  In these circumstances the Court would ordinarily have no hesitation at all in imposing a sentence of youth detention, but it has decided on balance and with some hesitation to give the defendant one further chance for two reasons:

(i)        Mr Le Marrec, has himself recommended that the Community Service Order be continued with a penalty by way of extra hours.  

(ii)       The defendant does have a good report from the Probation Officer dealing with the Probation Order which has another six months to run.

15.      We therefore formerly revoke the Community Service Order and impose an Order of 160 hours Community Service which is the equivalent of 8 months' Youth Detention to be completed by 31^st December 2022.  

16.      The Probation Order will remain in force. 

17.      We want to say to you W, it really is about time that you showed some sense of maturity.  You are 18 now and you are going to be 19 in July.  You clearly have a problem with authority, you accept that, it comes through in the report that we received.  But we all have to learn to live with authority, each of us, and your life is going to be very difficult if you cannot learn live with authority as well.  You must accept the Orders of the supervisory officer and if you do not you will be back here, and the Court will have no sympathy with you at all.  Do you understand that. 

Authorities

AG v Z and Y [2021] JRC 044. 

Criminal Justice (Community Service Order) (Jersey) Law 2001. 

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014.