Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2010]JRC236

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

22^nd December 2010

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Q.C., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle and Marett-Crosby.

The Attorney General

-v-

Dean Christopher Rawlinson

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

1 count of:	Failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of a Young Offenders Licence, contrary to Article 10(5) of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 (Count 1).
3 counts of:	Breaking and entry and larceny (Counts 2, 3 and 5).
1 count of:	Larceny (Count 4).

Age:  20.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 20^th January, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to a total period of 10 months' youth detention by the Magistrate's Court.  When released from that sentence he was still under the age of 21 and therefore subject to the provisions under Article 10 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.  He was subject to a period of supervision.  However, he refused to sign the Licence upon his release from custody and failed to keep an appointment at the Probation Department and also failed to provide details of his residence (Count 1). 

Commercial premises were entered by an escape ladder on to the roof and then through an insecure window.  The suspect wearing identifiable clothing was seen on CCTV.  A total of £35 in cash and a laptop computer with a value of £700 was stolen.  Items were not recovered.  Items of clothing identified in the CCTV recording and also footwear marks matching those of trainers found at the defendant's address were recovered.  An untidy search of the premises had been undertaken.  (Count 2). 

On a separate date another set of commercial premises were entered overnight and again an untidy search undertaken.  A variety of items including a watch, three mobile phones, camera, cash approximately in the sum of £62 and cigarettes were all stolen.  The defendant's fingerprints were found in one of the offices.  None of the stolen property was recovered.  (Count 3). 

The defendant identified from CCTV footage entering a sports shop and paying for a pair of sunglasses.  He stole by wearing three pairs of socks and a new pair of trainers.  He left his old trainers behind.  (Count 4). 

Breaking and entering commercial premises undertaken at night.  Burglar alarms were set off and security officers arrived to find the defendant still on the premises.  Tried to escape from the security staff and police officers by jumping from a third floor internal window to the ground floor foyer.  Sustained serious injuries.  Found in possession of a variety of items including £58 in cash, bottles of aftershave, cans of lager and other items of nominal value.  He had undertaken an untidy search of premises (Count 5). 

Details of Mitigation:

The Crown

Guilty plea entered on Indictment; youth; he was not co-operative with the police in interview.  Assessed as being of high risk of re-offending and of significant risk of harm to the general public. The Crown considered that he fell within all three sub-paragraphs of Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 and that the only appropriate sentence was one of youth detention.  He had previously breached every single non-custodial sentence imposed upon him.  An appalling record including 14 previous offences of breaking and entering and illegal entry. 

The Defence

The Defence submitted offence committed against background of him having just been released from custody with no accommodation, no employment and low mood.  Feeling at a low ebb.  Suffering from depression which had been treated whilst on remand.  Marked improvement in his attitude as noted in the Social Enquiry Report since remand in custody.  Suffered serious injuries in relation to the final Count on Indictment.  The injuries were of his own making but had caused him to reflect upon his life and to indicate a marked change in his usual offending.  The Court was invited to consider community service so that he could give something back to the community: contribute rather than be a burden.  All the offences were committed over a two week period when he was at a low ebb.  He had fractured both heels and left leg and left arm required further surgery.  He had been advised that he was lucky to be alive or not in a wheelchair.  Remorse and apology to the Court, youth and constructive use of time whilst on remand.  Social Enquiry Report indicated a difficult background but a marked change in attitude.  He now had a girlfriend who was a positive influence on him.  If released would need to find accommodation and employment. 

Previous Convictions:

9 convictions for a total of 45 offences including 14 for breaking and entry and illegal entry, numerous larceny, receiving stolen goods, possession of an offensive weapon, malicious damage, false pretence, possession of a controlled drug x 2, motoring offences, escaping from lawful custody and disorderly in licensed premises. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:	30 days' youth detention.
Count 2:	3 years' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 3:	3 years' youth detention, concurrent.
Count 4:	1 month's youth detention, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 years' youth detention, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' youth detention.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The defendant to be sentenced for breaching the Young Offenders Licence, three offences of breaking and entry and larceny and an offence of larceny.  Three separate offences of breaking and entry and larceny.  These were serious offences and would normally warrant an immediate custodial sentence.  The defendant should be under no illusion given that this was a second appearance before the Royal Court and he could normally expect the length of sentence to escalate if there was an escalation in his re-offending. 

The Court was going to take a chance with him.  The Court was taking into account the time he had spent on remand and the positive improvements in his attitude.  It was going to give him some encouragement and he should consider himself to be very lucky on this occasion.  He still fell within the provisions of the 1994 Law and this was likely to be the last occasion that the provisions of that law would apply to him.  Everyone gets a chance and it was up to the individual what they made of that chance.  This was his chance.  The Court was giving him a chance with its eyes wide open and placing its trust in him to take full advantage of the opportunity that he was being given.  The Court did not want to see him back before the Court again.  He must stay off drink and drugs and must get himself a job. 

The defendant ordered to complete 240 hours community service concurrent to Count 2, 3 and 5 and 50 hours community service concurrent to Count 4.  The custodial alternative would have been 2 years' youth detention which would have been imposed concurrently on Counts 2, 3 and 5 and 1 month's concurrent on Count 4.  No separate penalty would have been imposed for Count 1.  It would also impose a 12 month Probation Order.  He was given clear warning as to the consequences were he to breach any of these orders or to re-offend and return before the Court.  The Court reiterated that it did not want to see him again. 

Count 1:	No separate penalty.
Count 2:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, plus a 12 month Probation Order.
Count 3:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, plus a 12 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 4:	50 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 1 month's youth detention, plus a 12 month Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 5:	240 hours' Community Service Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention, plus a 12 month Probation Order, concurrent.

Total:  240 hours' Community Service Order plus a 12 month Probation Order, equivalent to 2 years' youth detention. 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. R. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Rawlinson, you are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains five counts; failing to comply with the requirements of the probation officer to provide contact details; breaking and entry and larceny, there are three counts of that and one count of larceny itself.  Breaking and entry was on three separate occasions, 22^nd June between 26^th and 28^th and on the 4^th July, all into commercial premises.  These are serious offences which would normally lead you to be given a custodial sentence and you should be under no illusions at all that that is the case.  We have looked at your record, this is your second time in the Royal Court, and you should also be under no illusions that when you come to this Court you can expect sentences to escalate.  You received two years on the last occasion and you should expect to get more on this occasion because that is the way that the system tends to work for a similar pattern of offending. 

2.        As it happens, the Court is going to take a chance with you today.  We are taking into account the time which you have spent in custody and your response to it and we are certainly taking into account the injuries which you have suffered and if you have got any sense at all, you will ponder those injuries and ponder how much worse it could have been, and recognise that you are indeed very lucky on this occasion.  We are also taking into account the background report, social enquiry report from the Probation Office which is very positive and which is giving us some encouragement.  I say that because it is the duty of the Court to have regard to the fact you are a young offender and that the 1994 law applies to you.  This is going to be probably, I hope it will at any rate, the last occasion when this law is going to be referred to in connection with you because you are 20 years old and it will not apply in the future.  But in any event, there is a quote from Hamlet "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune".  It means that everyone gets a chance, there comes a moment in somebody's life when they get a chance and they can make something of it.  This is your moment, despite everything that has happened to you so far, despite all the problems that you have had and your background and your life so far, this is your time to turn it around and to take that chance.  I want you to realise the Court is giving you that chance with our eyes wide open because we know that it is a risk that we are taking but we are trusting you to take full advantage of it.  I do not want to see you in this Courtroom again.  You must stay off drugs, you must stay off the drink, and you must get yourself a job. 

3.        Nonetheless you have to be sentenced for what you have done.  The sentence of this Court is that you will serve 240 hours' community service on Counts 2, 3 and 5, in each case concurrently, so that makes a total of 240 hours community service on those counts and 50 hours' community service, concurrent on Count 4 so that does not affect the total.  The total community service remains at 240 hours.  If we were going to sentence you to a custodial sentence the alternative would have been 2 years' youth detention on Counts 2, 3 and 5 and 1 month's youth detention, concurrent on Count 4.  There will be no separate penalty on Count 1.  In addition we are going to put you on probation for 12 months and that is so that the Probation Service can give you the support which we think that you are still going to need.  You must be in no doubt at all that if you break the terms of probation, if you do not do as the probation officer requires you to do and if you do not perform the community service, you will be back in this Court and you will come to be sentenced for these offences all over again.  I repeat, we do not want to see you again so take this chance that has been given to you. 

Authorities

AG-v-Rawlinson [2008] JRC 132.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.

Criminal Justice (Young offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

AG-v-Gaffney [1995] JRC 101.

AG-v-Rodrigues [2007] JRC 067.