[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> 1998/185 - AG v Sutcliffe [1998] UR 185 (4 September 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/1998/185.html Cite as: [1998] UR 185

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

4 September 1998

Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

Jurats Gruchy and Le Breton

AG

-v-

Dominic Sutcliffe

Admitted breach of an 18 months Probation Order with a condition of SMART course attendance, made by the Royal Court on 22 April 1998[1998.081] following a guilty plea to:

1 count of receiving, withholding, or hiding property, knowing it to have been stolen (count 1b); and

1 count of resisting a Police Officer in the execution of his duty (count 2).

(On 24 July 1998, the Probationer failed to appear before the Court to answer to the said breach and the Court ordered his arrest and detention in custody for his appearance when required].

Conclusions:

Probation Order be discharged, and sentences moved for on 22 April 1998, be imposed, making a total of 14 months Youth Detention.

Sentence and Observations of the Court:

Count 1b: £400 fine or 4 months Youth Detention in default of payment.

Count 2: £100 or 1 month Youth Detention, consecutive, in default of payment.

Fines to be paid at rate of £30 per week, starting 2 weeks from today.

JGP Wheeler, Esq., Crown Advocate

Advocate NF Journeaux for the accused

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF: Sutcliffe, your record is not impressive. In March, 1997, you were bound over by the Magistrates Court; in July last year, you were placed on probation with a condition of community service by this Court; in April of this year, you were placed on probation by this Court again with a condition of attending the SMART course; and on each occasion you have breached the trust placed in you by the Court and you have broken those orders.

The Court, however, finds itself in an unusual position. As a result of the administrative errors which have been described, we have no power to sentence you for the failure to comply with the Order of the Court last year. We have heard from counsel that you have spent, in respect of the two offences for which we now have to sentence you, nearly 8 months on remand in Youth Detention and therefore we accept that you have been punished to a large extent for those offences.

We have listened carefully to everything that your counsel has said. We think you have placed your head in the sand and we think that if you continue to place your head in the sand you are going to get yourself into even greater difficulties than you have experienced so far. We are going to take at face value what your counsel has said to us about your willingness to reform yourself and we are therefore not going to impose the custodial sentence which, perhaps, you might deserve for your failure to comply with the Orders of the Court. We are, however, going to punish you, because we must. We have noted that you are able to find employment and we are accordingly going to impose a financial penalty which will bring this matter to a close, and, subject to your paying the fines, of course, then you will not come back before this Court again.

We are going to fine you, in respect of the receiving of the stolen property, the sum of £400, or, in default, four months Youth Detention. On the charge of resisting the police, we are going to fine you £100, or, in default, one month Youth Detention, consecutive, making a total fine of £500, or, in default, five months Youth Detention. The fines will be paid at the rate of at least £30 per week and the first payment will be made two weeks’ from today. Sutcliffe, the Court hopes that it is not going to see you before it again.

Authorities

AG -v- Hall (15 August 1997) Jersey Unreported