Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2009]JRC247

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

18^th December 2009

Before     :

M. C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Brocq and Le Cornu.

The Attorney General

-v-

James Christopher Power

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

3 counts of:

Larceny (Counts 1, 2 and 4).

Age:  23.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

4 counts of larceny over a 3 day period; 2 x alcohol, 1 x bicycle, 1 x perfume.  Breach of probation for which he was sentenced to 180 hours' Community Service in lieu of a 2 year prison sentence.  Main offence on previous occasion breaking and entering and larceny.

Details of Mitigation:

Completed 50 hours of the community service and appears to have turned the corner in his life by seeking treatment for drug dependency.

Previous Convictions:

20 previous offences, 6 for dishonesty, 3 for drugs and other miscellaneous.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	6 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Community Service Order and Probation Order:

Count 1:	23 months' imprisonment, consecutive to present Indictment.
Count 2:	23 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	23 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	18 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  2 years' and 1 month's imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court reduced the Crown's conclusions because 50 hours of community service had been completed which amounted to just under one-third of the prison sentence on the last occasion.

Count 1:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	6 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.

Breach of Community Service Order and Probation Order.

Count 1:	13 months' imprisonment, consecutive to present Indictment.
Count 2:	13 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	13 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	13 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	13 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	1 month's imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	2 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  15 months' imprisonment.

N. M. Santos-Costa, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. R. Baglin for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        On the 3^rd April you appeared before this Court for three offences of breaking and entering, two of receiving stolen property and three of larceny and this was not long after you had been released from prison.  The Court, however, gave you a chance and imposed a Probation Order and community service.  But now you have re-offended with three offences of shop-lifting and one of taking a bicycle and you have also made disappointing progress in relation to the Probation Order and the community service.

2.        Despite this, your counsel has urged that we give you one more chance; he has referred to the fact you pleaded guilty but most importantly he has referred to the contents of the reports, which we have read carefully, and they do suggest that at long last you seem to be motivated to overcome your drug problem which is at the root of your offending, and they are recommending a place at Silkworth Lodge. 

3.        However, we have to remind ourselves what the Court said on the last occasion when you appeared here.  The Court made it absolutely clear that it was taking an exceptional course in giving you a non-custodial sentence, and said that if you came back again, re-offended or did not comply with all the various orders, custody would be the only option.  We hoped that you would take advantage of the opportunity; sadly you have not.  We do accept that your intentions are good and that you wish to change things around but the Court means what it says when it makes remarks of that nature. 

4.        We see no alternative to a custodial sentence but we think we can reduce it for two reasons; the first is that you spent four months on remand on the last occasion and that will not be counted towards the current sentence; therefore we are going to make an adjustment to the sentence to compensate in a broad view for that.  Secondly, the Crown has accepted that you have done 50 hours of the community service but has only treated that as the equivalent of 1 month's imprisonment.  We understand that that is the theoretical relationship but 50 hours was in fact between a quarter and one third of the entire Community Service Order so we think we ought to allow rather more off the sentence we are now going to impose on the basis that you have, in effect, done between a quarter and a third of the original sentence. 

5.        So making those adjustments, the sentence is as follows.  On the current Indictment there is no change, Count 1; 1 month, Count 2 ; 2 months, Count 3; no separate penalty and Count 4; 6 weeks, all of those to be concurrent, so that is 2 months in all.  In relation to the offences for which you have to be re-sentenced following the breaches: Count 1; 13 months, Count 2; 13 months, Count 3; 13 months, Count 4; 13 months, Count 5; 13 months, Count 6; 1 month, Count 7; 2 months, Count 8; 2 months, all those to be concurrent, that is 13 months in all, added consecutively to the 2 months makes a total of 15 months, which is the sentence we impose.

Authorities

AG-v-Power [2009] JRC 059.