Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC030

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

13^th February 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Julian Peter Le Long

 

 

 

3 counts of:	Receiving, hiding or withholding stolen property (counts 1, 2 and 5).
1 count of:	Possession of a controlled drug contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 6:  Cannabis.

 

Breach of a 130 hour Community Service Order, made in Magistrates' Court on 2^nd July, 2003, following conviction on 1 count of possession of an offensive weapon and admitted breach of: (1) a 40 hour Community Service Order made in Magistrates' Court on 12^th March, 2003, following conviction on 1 count of being drunk in charge; (2) a 12 month Binding Over Order, made in Magistrates' Court on 3^rd February, 2003, following conviction on 4 parking offences; (3) a 12 months' Probation Order, made in Magistrates' Court on 31^st January, 2003, following conviction on malicious damage, resisting arrest, and possession of a controlled drug; and (4) a 12 months Binding Over Order, made in Magistrates' Court on 5^th September, 2002, following conviction on 1 count of assault.  On 2^nd July, 2003, the Magistrates' Court revoked the Probation Order of 31^st January, 2003 and the Binding Over Order of 5^th September, 2002.

 

[On 9^th January, 2004, not guilty pleas to counts 3 and 4 of the indictment were accepted by the Crown].

 

Age:     33.

 

Plea:    Guilty; admitted breaches of Binding Over and Community Service Orders.

 

Details of Offence:

The three counts of criminally receiving, hiding or withholding stolen property arose out of two incidents of breaking and entering.  The first took place overnight on Sunday 3^rd and Monday 4^th August, 2003, at premises known as 92 Bath Street, St Helier.  These premises are jointly occupied by two businesses connected by an internal door.  Cash and numerous items of electrical sound equipment (worth £3,584) were stolen from one business and a laptop (worth £1,200) was taken from the other.

The second incident of breaking and entering took place overnight on Sunday 10^th and Monday 11^th August, 2003, at the Tivoli Tavern.  Some 533 packets of cigarettes were stolen from vending machines sabotaged during the break in.

As a result of information received, officers carried out a search of Le Long's home on 12^th August, 2003.  The sound equipment, laptop and cigarettes were all found in his flat, as was a small quantity (5.78g) of cannabis resin.

The offences put him in breach of previous Community Service Orders.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Pursuant to the factors identified in Webbe this was handing towards the lower end of the sale (no evidence connecting Le Long with the larceny, no evidence of benefit, minimal role, no sophisticated concealment, no voluntary restitution but goods were recovered and can be returned).

No previous convictions for dishonesty.

Downward spiral in Le Long's life since death of father two years ago (including failure of 14 year relationship with the mother of his two children, loss of job, recent convictions, alcohol dependency).

 

Previous Convictions:

4 convictions for 7 offences, including one of possession of a controlled drug.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, consecutive.

 

Breach of 12^th March, 2003, Magistrates' Court Community Service Order: 1 month's imprisonment; Breach of 3^rd February, 2003, Magistrates' Court Binding Over Order: 7 days' imprisonment, concurrent with each other, but consecutive to sentence passed on present indictment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Probation for one year subject to conditions, including attendance at Drugs and Alcohol for twelve months.

180 hours' community service concurrent on each count (to be completed within one year) - equivalent prison sentence is one of 12 months.

Discharge of all Probation and Community Service Orders from Magistrates' Court. 

Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Court unconvinced that Le Long not more closely involved with the original offences of breaking and entering.  However, considered him to be at a "crossroads" in his life and with "some hesitation" dealt with him by way of a non-custodial sentence.

 

 

 

A.J. Belhomme, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate N.S.H. Benest for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant comes before the Court for sentence on three counts of receiving stolen property to the total value of some £6,000, and one count of the possession of cannabis.  The property was recovered from the defendant's flat.

2.        Le Long gave no explanation to the police as to how the stolen property came into his possession although he did give subsequently an explanation to the Probation Officer and that explanation was repeated by Counsel on his instructions.  That explanation was that two men had come to the house and apparently brought with them the goods in question.  They and required the defendant to keep the goods, because he owed them money in respect of a drugs debt.

3.        The defendant's explanation was that he accepted the property because he was in fear of them, but that he derived no financial benefit from the receipt of the stolen property.  Curiously, however, his girlfriend did use some of the cigarettes which were part of the stolen property, and the stolen property was not all in one part of the flat when the police arrived. 

4.        It is also to be noted that the defendant was arrested on 12^th August, and that the last of the three break ins during which the property in question was stolen took place on the night of the 10^th and 11^th August, 2003.

5.        Le Long, the Court has some doubt as to whether the explanation that you have instructed your counsel to give the Court is accurate and suspects that you were more closely associated with the original offences than you were prepared to admit.

6.        Be that as it may, I want to say to you that the Court considers that you are at a cross roads.  You have,  as your counsel very eloquently said on your behalf, gone seriously down hill during the last 18 months or 2 years, and it is really up to you now whether you continue that downward spiral or whether you are going to get a grip of your life and make something of it to your benefit and to the benefit of your children.

7.        With some hesitation we are going to accept the invitation of your counsel to deal with you by way of a non custodial sentence.  We want to tell you that if you do not comply with the orders that the Court is about to make and if you come back for sentence for these, or indeed, for any other offences, there is a very strong likelihood that you will be sentenced to prison and that the mercy which the Court is extending on this occasion will not be repeated.  We hope you understand that.

8.        The sentence of the Court is that on the counts on the indictment on which you appear this morning you will be placed on probation for 1 year subject to the usual conditions that you be of good behaviour and appear before the Court when called upon to do so.  Secondly, that you be under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed under the Law of 1937 on probation.  Thirdly, that you reside in such a place and work in such employment as a Probation Officer shall direct.  Fourthly, that you notify the Probation Officer forthwith of any pending changes of residence or employment.  Fifthly, that you do not travel outside Jersey without the permission of the Court.  Sixthly, that you keep in touch with the Probation Officer in accordance with such instructions as may from time to time be given by the Probation Officer; in particular that, if he so requires, you receive visits from the Probation Officer at your home.  Seventhly, that you attend the Drug and Alcohol Service for a period of one year and that you comply with the treatment goals determined by that service.

9.        That is the first element of the sentence which the Court is going to impose.  The second element is that the Court will order you to do 180 hours of Community Service concurrent on each of the counts of the indictment.  We declare the equivalent prison sentence is one of 12 months' imprisonment.  That community service must be completed within one year.

10.      We discharge all the probation and community service orders made by the Magistrates' Court, so that there is a clean sheet, so far as that is concerned, and we hope that we will not see you again.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

R -v- Webbe & Ors [2002] 1 Cr, App. R (S) 82.

Wylie -v- A.G. (17^th January, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/13].

Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2^nd Ed'n): paras 394-410.

A.G. -v- Munks (8^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported: [1999/168A].