Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/120

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24th May 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Francisco Ambrosio Franco

 

 

1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:Count 1: MDMA
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978:Count 2: MDMA

 

Breach of a 3 year probation order with 240 hours community service made by the Superior Number of the Royal Court on 21st December 1999 (see Jersey Unreported Judgments of that date; [1999/223]), following a guilty plea to;

2 counts of:	kidnapping (counts 1 and 3) and
2 counts of:	indecent assault (counts 2 and 4).

 

Age:     35.

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Breach of Probation Order:  See Jersey Unreported 21st December 1999 (1999/223).  In 1997 and 1999 Franco offered lifts to 17 year old boys.  He deviated from route home and homosexually importuned victims before subjecting them to relatively minor assaults (hand on genitals outside clothing).  Threatened violence and drove to park in unlit country lane.  Boys escaped.

 

Present Indictment:  The defendant found an ecstasy tablet in a nightclub and put it in his pocket with the intention of giving it to a friend who took the drug.  As he left the nightclub, he saw a 22 year old man who had previously been a customer of the fish and chip shop he had managed.  This male was drunk and the defendant offered him a lift home.  Whilst in the car the defendant gave the ecstasy tablet to the young man.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Breach of Probation Order:  Guilty pleas; financial pressures; delay between 1997 and the current charge; out of character; not a danger to the public; could be cured.  [On 21st December 1999 the Superior Number placed Franco on a 3 year probation order on condition that he complete 240 hours community service within 1 year and that he seek help in relation to the original indictment].

 

Present Indictment:  Guilty plea; and wrote his own indictment.

 

The Attorney General's representation  for breach of the terms of the probation order imposed by the Superior Number on 21st December 1999 was made as a result of the drug offences which were the subject of the 4th May 2001 indictment and the fact that Franco had been convicted for larceny of batteries valued at £15 from a shop whilst he was employed as a cleaner (8th March 2000).  Franco had been convicted of minor motoring offences (12th April 2000) and in March and April 2001, against the express advice of his probation officer, had given lifts to young males, although no allegations of any misconduct was made by the young men involved.

 

Previous Convictions:

1998 and 2000: numerous minor motoring offences.

12th November 1998: possession of a controlled drug (heroin): placed on probation and ordered to complete 45 hours community service by the Magistrate's Court.

21st December 1999: indecent assault and kidnapping.

8th March 2000: larceny of batteries.

12th April 2001 miscellaneous minor motoring offences.

 

Conclusions:

Present Indictment:

Count 1:	1 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent

 

Breach of probation order

Count 1: 9 months' imprisonment.

Count 2: 3 months' imprisonment.

Count 3: 12 months' imprisonment.

Count 4: 3 months'  imprisonment.

All concurrent, but consecutive to sentences passed on present indictment.

 

TOTAL SENTENCE: 1 year, 4 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	1 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	4 months' imprisonment, concurrent

 

Breach of probation order

Count 1: 9 months' imprisonment.

Count 2: 3 months' imprisonment.

Count 3: 12 months' imprisonment.

Count 4: 3 months' imprisonment.

 

All sentences concurrent.

 

TOTAL SENTENCE: 1 years' imprisonment.

 

Franco had been given a chance by the Superior Number on 31st December 1999 but had failed to take the opportunity to benefit from therapeutic advice and, together with his subsequent convictions and the fact that he had not heeded the advice and guidance of the probation officer regarding carrying young boys in his car, led the Court to impose a custodial sentence.

 

P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.J. Chapman for the accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        On 21st December 1999, the Court gave you a chance.  It placed you on probation for 3 years and ordered you to do 240 hours' community service.  It was also a condition that you should seek therapeutic help as directed by your probation officer and the Court gave you a clear warning that if you were to breach your probation order you could expect to go to prison.  You breached it soon afterwards in March 2000, when you committed a very minor offence of larceny and at that stage you were given yet another chance.  You are now in breach again in that you have supplied an ecstasy tablet, that you found, to a young man of 22, to whom you had given a lift.  We accept, however, that this offence has only come before the Court because of your admissions.  The Crown has also referred to the fact that you have, on at least 3 occasions, given lifts to young boys in your car and this in the face of repeated advice from your probation officer that you should not do this.  We accept, however, that nothing untoward happened and that you did not commit any offence, or do anything wrong. But it does not show a good attitude towards the probation order which the Court made because, as we say, it shows that you were not taking note of what your probation officer was saying to you.  One of the purposes of a probation order is for you to be guided and advised by a probation officer. 

2.        We have taken account of all the points that Mr. Chapman has forcefully put forward, but we are satisfied that you have simply not taken advantage of the opportunity you were given and of the trust placed in you by the Court and we, therefore, propose to impose a prison sentence.

3.        Turning to the original indictment, on count 1; 9 months' imprisonment, on count 2; 3 months' imprisonment, on count 3; 12 months' imprisonment, on count 4; 3 months' imprisonment.  All of those to be concurrent.  On the present indictment, on count 1; 1 months' imprisonment, on count 2; 4 months' imprisonment, each of those concurrent with each other.  However, in view of all the circumstances and in particular the fact that these charges could not have been brought without your admission, we are going to make those concurrent, not withstanding the normal policy of the Court, that new offences are dealt with consecutively to matters for which a person is being sentenced for breach of probation.  Therefore, the total sentence will be one of 12 months imprisonment.  We also would express the wish that the prison should investigate making the therapeutic treatment, referred to earlier, available to you in prison, if this is possible.    

 

Authorities

A.G.-v-Wood, Bevis  (8th March 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/58]