Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC190

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

1^st November 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Elliott Aidan Le Feuvre;

Nicholas Alexander Watters

 

 

Elliott Aidan Le Feuvre

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1^st October, 2004, following Guilty plea to the following charges:

 

1 count of:	Attempted robbery. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Having offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to Article 43(1) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.  (Count 3).

 

Age:     24

 

Details of Offence:

At Saturday lunchtime on 28^th February, 2004, the Defendants entered a convenience store with the intention of robbery.  Watters approached the till and asked the 15 year old shop assistant for a packet of cigarettes.  The girl gave him the cigarettes, but she did not open the till.  Le Feuvre then approached the till, pulled out a large kitchen knife, grabbed the shop assistant's jumper with his left hand and with the knife in his right hand, pointed it at the girl so that it nearly touched her chest.  He demanded that she open the till.  The assistant refused to open the till.  At this point the manager, who had heard Le Feuvre saying "Open the till" via the CCTV/sound monitor in his office, rushed towards the till.  Another customer then entered the shop and both Defendants made off.  Le Feuvre was later positively identified from the CCTV pictures by a Police Officer.  Clothing, which was suspected to have been worn by the Defendants during the attempted robbery, was seized at premises where the defendants were arrested, some 200 yards from the shop.  Forensic tests indicated that the seized garments had been worn by the Defendants and the clothing appeared identical to the clothes seen on CCTV.  Le Feuvre pleaded guilty on indictment; Watters pleaded not guilty and was remanded for trial.  Le Feuvre then gave a witness statement against Watters detailing his involvement in the offence.  Watters changed his plea three weeks before trial.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Le Feuvre suffered an appalling upbringing witnessing, and being subjected to, violence and abuse.  Abused drugs and alcohol.  Pleaded guilty on indictment.  Gave statement against co-accused.  Expressed remorse, particularly towards the 15 year old shop assistant.  Le Feuvre gave information to the police regarding an ongoing drugs case and wished this to be acknowledged in open Court.  Offence had been committed to obtain money to purchase drugs and since being in custody on remand had become drug free.

 

Previous Convictions:

Fourteen previous convictions comprising 53 offences, many for violence.

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 1:	3½ years' imprisonment (in recognition of his co-operation with police and assistance to them).
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

[On 1^st October, 2004, the Crown accepted a Not Guilty plea to count 2 of the indictment.]

 

 

Nicholas Alexander Watters

 

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the Defendant was remanded by the Inferior Number on 1^st October, 2004, following Guilty plea to:

 

1 count of:

Attempted robbery. (Count 1).

 

Age:     22

 

 

Details of Offence:

See Le Feuvre.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Expressed remorse.  He too had a drug and alcohol problem and appeared naïve and easily led.  Relatively good character.

 

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction - possession of an offensive weapon for which he was fined.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:

3 years' imprisonment.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

 

 

 

Mrs S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. Bell for E.A. Le Feuvre.

Advocate C.M. Fogarty for N.A. Watters.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        The two of you hatched a plan to rob the Food Fair Stores.  You took a kitchen knife and when the store was empty of customers you, Watters, went up to the counter and then you, Le Feuvre, joined him and told the shop assistant to open the till.  When she did not do so you took out the kitchen knife and held it close to her chest, pointing it straight at her.

2.        The shop assistant, Lindsay Evans, who was only 15 at the time, showed very commendable courage and still refused to open it.  Fortunately at that time another customer came in.  The manager also came out to see what was happening and you ran off and made good your escape.

3.        We would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Miss Evans' bravery.  She showed considerable courage in the face of this frightening incident and we commend her.

4.        The robbery was carried out to get money for drugs, heroin and cocaine in Le Feuvre's case; valium in the case of Watters.  We accept, as was submitted by counsel, that it was not the most sophisticated attempt at robbery and it was fortunately caught on CCTV but it must have been a terrifying incident for Miss Evans, and the Court has repeatedly said that it takes a very serious view of robberies of this nature.

5.        We would like to repeat what the Court of Appeal said in the case of Gill-v- A.G. (29^th September, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/160]: 

"The starting point for this Court is that the robbery in this case was a particularly serious one.  A dangerous knife was put at the throat of the young cashier and he was placed in fear of his life or of serious injury.  Whether the robbery was premeditated or not and whether it was committed under the influence of alcohol or not are questions of little significance in the light of the simple fact that the violence committed in the course of the robbery involved putting the young cashier in such fear.

No community can tolerate violent robberies of this kind and any person who commits such a violent robbery in Jersey, whatever may be the circumstances of the robber must expect to receive severe punishment by a long prison sentence." 

6.        In that particular case, although it was Gill's first conviction for any offence involving violence, the Court upheld a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, he having pleaded guilty, and the Court indeed said that, if it had been 5 years' imprisonment, it was doubtful whether leave to appeal would have been given.

7.        Le Feuvre, you have the most appalling record.  You have previous convictions for robbery.  You were sentenced to 4 years' youth detention for a number of offences including two robberies and one of attempted robbery.  You have other convictions for violence and for possession of weapons and for dishonesty and this offence was committed only seven days after you were released on licence from a sentence of imprisonment in England. 

8.        In mitigation you did plead guilty and we have read carefully the Social Enquiry Report and the Drug and Alcohol Report and we accept, and note, your very difficult background.  If the matter had stood there we think the correct sentence would have been one of 4½ years' imprisonment, bearing in mind your record and what happened on this occasion.  But Mr Bell has relied strongly on the fact that you have given information that has been of assistance in this case and in relation to other matters and you are willing publicly to acknowledge this.

9.        The Court has repeatedly said that where this happens it will give an additional discount.  But that depends on the significance and value of the information.  We have considered carefully the additional mitigation which should be allowed in this case, and we think that an additional one year is correct and therefore the Crown's conclusions are correct.

10.      The sentence in your case is one of 3½ years' imprisonment.

11.      Now, Watters, you pleaded guilty but your plea was late, and therefore you do not get the full benefit that you would have had if you had admitted the offence from the beginning.  On the other hand, you have only one previous conviction for possession of an offensive weapon.  You have had a good employment record until recently.  You had turned to the Drug and Alcohol Service on a voluntary basis to try and deal with your drug problem.  Since being in prison you have de-toxed and it is clear to us from the reports that you have a strong desire to overcome your addiction and to address your drink problem.

12.      We note the steps you are taking in prison to try and put your life back on track to prepare yourself for your release and we thoroughly support that.  In addition we have noted the good references.  All this is strongly in your favour, but as we have said already, offences of robbery are so serious that they have to attract a prison sentence and it has to be a sentence of some length.

13.      Nevertheless, your rôle was less than that of Le Feuvre; you did not use the knife; and you have much greater mitigation available to you - as we have summarised and as we have read in the papers.  In the circumstances, we think the correct sentence is that moved for by the Crown.  The sentence, therefore, in your case is 3 years' imprisonment.

Authorities

A.G. -v- Vieira (19^th October, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/206B].

A.G. -v- Gosselin (31^st March 2000)  Jersey Unreported; [2000/55].

A.G. -v- Gill (3^rd June 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/98].

Gill -v- A.G. (29^th September, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/160].

A.G. -v- Monet and Le Feuvre (5^th October 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/197].

A.G. -v- Stevenson (2^nd December, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/244].

A.G. -v- Rawlinson & Oeillet (18^th August, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/176].

A.G. -v- Whiteley (18^th June, 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/126].

A.G. -v- Nobrega and Fitzpatrick (3^rd July 1998) Jersey Unreported; [1998/142].