Jersey Unreported Judgments

2001/147

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

16^th July 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

William Stuart Swinburne;

Jolyon Garrick Picot.

William Stuart Swinburne

Present Indictment

2 counts of:	Receiving stolen property (counts 1 and 4);
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 2: diamorphine. Count 3: diamorphine.

 

Breach of Probation Order.

Breach of a 1 year Probation Order, with 120 hours community service, made by the Royal Court on 1^st September 2000 (see Jersey Unreported Judgment of that date) following a guilty plea to:

4 counts of:	Breaking and entering and larceny (counts 1,2,3 and 4); and
1 count of:	Breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime (count 5)

 

Age:     44

           

Plea:    Guilty.  Breach of Probation Order admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

The contents of the drugs safe at Reids Pharmacy, Longueville were stolen following a break in.  Swinburne received the drugs and hid them in a shed.  The value of the drugs was £3,864.00 and one drug in particular was highly toxic.  Police attended Swinburne's flat and when some of the stolen drugs were seen by them, Swinburne took them to the shed where the remainder were discovered (count 1).  Whilst attending Swinburne's flat on two occasions, Swinburne was found in possession of heroin (counts 2 and 3).  Count 4 referred to property stolen from residential premises.  Swinburne and Picot were apprehended in Swinburne's car and stolen jewellery to the value of £1,500 was found hidden beneath the passenger seat of the car.  Swinburne had been driving Picot around town to enable Picot to try to sell the jewellery to raise money for drugs.  During the course of the Police interview, Picot volunteered that he had supplied cannabis to an individual (one ounce) for a modest profit and to this extent he wrote his own indictment (count 5).

 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Both accused were hopeless addicts whose commission of offences was driven by the need to raise money for the purchase of drugs.  Swinburne suffered serious ill health.  The consequences of drug addiction were reflected in the records of both accused.  Swinburne had prior convictions for drugs offences and for break and entry.  Picot had prior convictions for drugs offences and larceny.  Both Swinburne and Picot were in breach of Probation Orders.  Picot had youth on his side being aged 21.   

 

Conclusions: Present Indictment

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, concurrent
Count 4:	12 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

Breach of Probation Order

Count 1:	1 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	3 months' imprisonment
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, all concurrent, but consecutive to total sentence passed on present indictment. Probation Order to be discharged.

 

TOTAL SENTENCE: 2 ½ years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

Jolyon Garrick Picot

Present Indictment

1 count of:	Receiving stolen property (counts 4);
1 count of:	Supplying a controlled drug, contrary to Article 5 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978: Count 5: Cannabis.

 

Breach of Probation Order

Breach of a 1 year Probation Order made by the Magistrate's Court on 20^th February 2001, following a guilty plea to one count of obstructing/ refusing to obey Police. (First Probation Order).

On 20^th February 2001 the defendant was also in breach of a 1 year Probation Order made by the Magistrate's Court on 28^th December 2000, following a guilty plea to 1 count of malicious damage (count 1) and 1 count of possession of heroin (count 2).  The Magistrate's Court discharged the Probation Order and substituted a 1 year Probation Order, concurrent. (2^nd Probation Order).  

 

Age:     21

 

Plea:    Guilty. 

 

Details of Offence:

See Swinburne, above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See Swinburne, above.

 

Conclusions: Present Indictment

Count 4:	9 months' imprisonment
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment, consecutive.

 

Breach of Probation Order

Probation Orders to be discharged.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court: Present Indictment

Conclusions granted.

 

Breach of Probation Orders

1^st Probation Order

Count 1:

1 months' imprisonment.

 

2^nd Probation Order

Count 1:	2 months' imprisonment
Count 2:	1 months' imprisonment. All concurrent, but consecutive to sentences passed on present indictment.

 

TOTAL SENTENCE: 1 year and 2 months' imprisonment

 

The Court noted that Picot had been allowed on eleven occasions to continue with Probation Orders.  Now, there was no alternative to imprisonment and the conclusions were granted on the current indictment.  The Court did not share the Crown's view that it was appropriate to discharge the Probation Order without additional penalty.

 

A.D. Robinson, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate M.L. Preston for W.S. Swinburne;

Advocate N-L.M. Langlois for J.G. Picot.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        We will deal first with Mr. Swinburne.  You are before the Court for two offences of receiving stolen property and two of possession of heroin.  As a result you are in breach of a Probation Order which this Court made on 1^st September for a number of offences of breaking and entry.  On that occasion we told you that if you re-offended you would be likely to be sent to prison and it was only as an act of mercy, on  that occasion, in view of your health, that you were not.  The real problem is your heroin addiction and you do not seem to have been able to do anything about that.

2.        We take account of your guilty plea and the continuing state of your health but, we think there is no alternative now to a custodial sentence.  We think that the Crown has taken into account all the mitigating factors and we therefore grant the conclusions. 

3.        We, therefore, impose a sentence of twelve months' on count one, three months' on count two,  three months' on count three, twelve months' on count 4.  The first three sentences to be concurrent but the last one to be consecutive making a total of twenty four months on this indictment.  In relation to the indictment for which you are in breach of probation: on count one of that indictment, one months' imprisonment, count two, three months', count three, three months', count four, six months', count five, 3 months'.  All those concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the sentence on the other indictment.  In other words a total of thirty months' imprisonment and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. 

4.        We turn to Mr. Picot.  You are before the Court for one offence of receiving and for one of supplying cannabis.  But these offences put you in breach of a Probation Order made by the Magistrate's Court on 20^th February and that was, in turn, imposed for a breach of a Probation Order made as recently as 28^th December, 2000.

5.        You too are a heroin addict and despite being on the methadone programme of the Drug and Alcohol Service you were still using heroin at the time of these offences and indeed you committed the offence in order to fund your heroin habit.

6.        You too have a poor record, although not for particularly serious offences.  In particular, you have been placed on probation, or Probation Orders have been allowed to continue on a total of some eleven occasions, not withstanding frequent breaches. 

7.        Miss Langlois has put in mitigation your plea of guilty, the fact that you wrote your own indictment on the supply charge and your continuing youth.  We take account of all this but the time has come for a prison sentence.  We cannot think of any satisfactory alternative. 

8.        Furthermore, we think that the conclusions of the Crown take account of all the mitigation, including your youth and we therefore grant the conclusions on the indictment, that is; nine months' imprisonment on count four and three months' imprisonment on count five, consecutive, making a total of twelve months'. 

9.        However, we do not agree with the Crown that it is possible to overlook the offences for which you were placed on probation.  You were placed on probation in December for two offences.  You ignored the chance there and re-offended, as a result of which the further Probation Orders were made.  You were not punished for the breach and now, here you are breaching again.  We think that to impose no sentence is simply to mean that there is no effective sanction for breach of probation and we do not agree with that suggestion. 

10.      Accordingly, we propose to sentence you for the offences for which you were placed on probation as follows; for the possession of heroin, two months', for the malicious damage, one month and for the obstruction of the police one month.  All of those to be concurrent, making two months' in all, but that is to be consecutive to the twelve months', making fourteen months' in all.         

No Authorities