Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - Larceny

[2022]JRC177

Royal Court

(Samedi)

26 August 2022

The Attorney General

-v-

Channing Tornerup

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

Age:  41. 

Plea: Guilty. 

Details of Offence:

Channing Tornerup arrived in Jersey on 27^th March 2022 and obtained employment working for a cleaning company.  On 30^th March 2022, he cleaned Ms W's home in St Helier.  When she returned, she noticed that some drawers had been left open and items had been disturbed.  She discovered that money had been taken and four rings were missing from her jewellery box.

On 31^st March 2022, the Defendant cleaned Mrs G's home in St Helier.  When Mrs G returned home, she noticed that cash had been taken from her bag, a wallet had been taken, three rings were missing from her jewellery box and two watches were missing, a Rolex and a Rado.  

The Defendant was arrested later that day and during a search, a Rolex was found in his shorts pocket along with eight rings.  In custody, while he was being processed, a Rado watch was seized from his wrist.

Four of the rings were identified by Ms W as being her property, three of the rings and the two watches were identified by Mrs G as being her property and the final ring was identified as a Mr B's property.  The Defendant had cleaned Mr B's property on 30^th March 2022.

The Defendant sent messages to contacts trying to sell the watches and rings.

When interviewed he denied that he had stolen the items and gave a false account of having taken the items into safe keeping from an unknown man.

The watches and rings were returned to their rightful owners.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas - although these were not entered until two weeks after Indictment.  The plea to Count 3 was entered at the earliest opportunity (on Indictment).

Previous Convictions:

The Defendant has convictions for three theft and kindred offences, albeit some 19 years ago.  He also has convictions from 2001 for making false entries in official documents or tampering with the same.  In April 2021 he was sentenced to community orders for two offences of battery. 

Conclusions:

Total:  2 years' and 2 months' imprisonment. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Ms L B Hallam, Crown Advocate.

Advocate A.E. Binnie for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF:

1.             Channing Tornerup, you arrived in Jersey on 27 March this year and almost at once obtained work as a domestic cleaner.  You have not been employed as a cleaner before. 

2.             Within three days of your arrival here, and on the second day of your employment, you stole jewellery, a wallet and cash from the first of your victims whose home you were supposed to be cleaning.  The next day you stole more jewellery and cash from another house and a signet ring from a third house.  You then tried to sell some of the items.  

3.             The value of the chattels you stole was some £7,700, and there is still £235 in cash missing.  But it is not the value of the stolen items and cash that lies at the heart of this case; it is a relevant consideration, but not by any means the only one.  Several of the items you stole were of sentimental value, and some of the cash constituted charity funds.  This again is a relevant consideration, but not the only one.  What lies at the heart of your offending is the breach of the trust that had been reposed in you.  Whilst you had authority to be in the houses because of the nature of your supposed employment, you abused that authority in order to commit these offences.   There is a trust inherent in the relationship between a homeowner and a cleaner, and you breached it.  Your victims, had in effect, invited you in, and you violated their homes.

4.             The Crown describes your offending as analogous to offences of illegal entry and larceny, but in our judgment your offending is arguably more serious.  There is no relationship between a burglar and his victim; there is no trust to breach.  

5.             We note that all the chattels that you stole have been recovered, though this was simply on account of the fact that you were arrested in possession of them.

6.             In your letter to us you describe your offending as, amongst other things, a serious error of judgment.  It was not an error of judgment; these were acts of serious dishonesty, and your abuse of these innocent people's trust renders your dishonestly correspondingly more serious.  

7.             We add that this was also a purely acquisitive crime.  You had £5,000 in the bank when you offended.  Let us not mince our words, Mr Tornerup: this was pure greed.  

8.             In your letter you claim that you had no intention of causing distress to anyone, but we ask ourselves how your victims could possibly fail to be distressed.  We understand from counsel that you have read the victim impact statements.  It is clear that two of your victims were very distressed indeed and to some extent still are.  And the gentleman whose signet ring you stole, although he was unaware of the theft at the time,  is clearly very concerned indeed about the invasion of his privacy.

9.             As was emphasised in AG v Cox and Quinn [2020] (2) JLR 1, "... a person's home should be his or her place of safety, security and sanctuary.  To have one's home violated is a dreadful thing."

10.          You cannot claim credit for previous good character, though we note that you have not been sentenced for an offence of dishonesty for many years, and we take that into account.  

11.          There is other mitigation available to you.

12.          You have pleaded guilty.  The plea to Count 3, the theft of the signet ring, was effectively entered at the earliest opportunity, and we allow you full credit for that.   But we cannot give full credit for your pleas to Counts 2 and 4.  You initially pleaded not guilty to them both, and this necessitated the preparation of a full prosecution case, including a review of the unused material.  You maintained those pleas when the case first came before this Court, and you finally entered pleas of guilty over two weeks later - though, as your counsel has pointed out, this was well ahead of the scheduled trial date.

13.          We must also observe that a verdict of guilty would have been more or less inevitable, given that on your arrest you were found in possession of the stolen items, including the fact that you were indeed wearing one of the watches that you had taken. 

14.          Taking those factors into account and applying the principles variously enunciated in the recent cases of AG v Ferguson, Morgan and Saunders [2022] JRC 102 and AG v Goncalves [2022] JRC 097, we have allowed only limited credit for your guilty pleas to Counts 2 and 4.

15.          Several other cases have been drawn to our attention by counsel for both the prosecution and the defence.  We find such cases to be of very limited assistance unless they are landmark cases. The only one in that category, or close to that category, is AG v Le Geyt [2019] JLC 210. 

16.          As we have said, we have read your letter of remorse and, save for those parts of it to which we have already referred, we find it broadly positive. 

17.          We note, however, that the Probation Officer is somewhat sceptical about your profession of remorse; we refer to paragraph 18 of the Pre-Sentence Report in this regard.  We observe also that if you were truly and deeply remorseful you would compensate your victims in respect of the £235 in cash that you stole from them - you can easily afford it.

18.          We note that you are described as taking only limited responsibility for your offending and that you are assessed at being a high risk of general re-conviction, but we also note that you have endured some significant mental health and relationship issues, and we have weighed those factors in the balance.  We have taken into account everything that Advocate Binnie has said on your behalf.  We have read the letters from your mother and Mr Ryding.  Your advocate tells us that you have a good support network and that you have employment prospects upon your release.  And we have carefully considered both the Pre-Sentence  and the Psychological Reports. 

19.          But as your advocate has correctly conceded, there are no exceptional circumstances such as would warrant departing from the Court's strict policy in cases such as these; a custodial sentence is inevitable. 

20.          We are unanimously of the opinion that the Crown's conclusions are correct.  Therefore the sentences are as follows:  Count 2, 2 years' and 2 months' imprisonment.  Count 3, 20 months' imprisonment.  Count 4, 2 years' and 2 months' imprisonment.  All sentences are to run concurrently, thus giving a total of 2 years' and 2 months' imprisonment.

21.          There will be no order as to costs.

22.          We formally record a verdict of "not guilty" in respect of Count 1.

23.          Finally, we authorise the release of Dr Boucher's Psychological Report to the relevant authorities at HMP La Moye.. 

Authorities

AG v Cox and Quinn [2020] (2) JLR 1

AG v Ferguson, Morgan and Saunders [2022] JRC 102. 

AG v Goncalves [2022] JRC 097. 

AG v Le Geyt [2019] JRC 210. 

AG v Fernandes [2022] JRC 083. 

AG v Cox and Quinn [2020] (2) JLR 1. 

Whelan, Aspects on Sentencing, 3rd Edition.