Jersey Unreported Judgments

 2001/206B

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

19^th October 2001

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Manuel Rosa Vieira

 

 

1 count of:

robbery.

 

 

Age:     31.       

 

Plea:    Guilty.  

 

Details of Offence:

During the day of 16^th August, 2001, the accused visited a restaurant where he had worked seeking re-employment.   At a time when there was just himself and a young waitress Vieira, who was drunk, grabbed a bread-knife with a 6" blade and threatened the waitress in an attempt to get her to open the till.  The accused lunged with the knife until it was just 6" from the victim's chest at which point she opened the till.  The accused grabbed £80 in cash from the till and left the premises, leaving the knife stuck in the counter top.  He was arrested shortly afterwards in the vicinity by the police and made full admissions during his interview.

 

Details of Mitigation:

The accused had a poor family background and had been educated in Madeira only up to ten years of age.  Accused committed the offence because of his poor financial position and believed he was owed money in respect of unpaid wages.  He was remorseful and this was not a pre-meditated robbery.

 

Previous Convictions:

Vieira had no previous convictions for violence but six previous Court appearances in Jersey were alcohol related.

 

Conclusions:

3 years' imprisonment; deportation order.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

2 years, 6 months' imprisonment; deportation recommended.

 

A sentence of 3 years imprisonment for such a traumatic robbery on a lone young woman would be a very moderate sentence.  Court assumed, for sentencing purposes however, that Vieira harboured a legitimate grievance against his former employer who owed him money.  The Court would, therefore, order a slightly reduced sentence in the exceptional circumstances.

 

Vieira's continued presence in the Island was considered by the Court to be to the Islands detriment given his pattern of offending to date and the seriousness of the current offence.  No undue hardship would be suffered by Vieira's removal.  Deportation was therefore recommended.

 

 

Advocate B.H. Lacey, Crown Advocate.

Advocate D.C. Sowden for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This was a serious offence of robbery involving the use of a knife to threaten a young woman so that cash could be stolen from the till.  It must have been a traumatic and distressing experience for her.  The offence was committed under the influence of alcohol which is an aggravating factor.  The Court has no doubt that a custodial sentence must be imposed.

2.        In mitigation the accused pleaded guilty at an early stage.  He has not before served any lengthy prison term.  Counsel also helpfully explained the background to the offence which, for the purposes of sentencing, we will assume to be true.  On that assumption, the accused was unfairly treated by his employer and as a result harboured a legitimate grievance following a failure to pay a week's wages which he believed to be due.

3.        Vieira, we understand the problem with your former employer but you must understand that you cannot take the law into your own hands and that there was no possible justification for threatening Sarah Cleary in the way you did.

4.        Generally speaking a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment would be a very moderate penalty for the offence which you committed but we are accepting your counsel's submissions about your outstanding wages and on that basis we will reduce, slightly, the conclusions.  You are sentenced to imprisonment for 2½ years.

5.        We turn to consider the question of whether a recommendation for deportation should be made.  Vieira came to Jersey 3½ years' ago and has during that short time been convicted on six different occasions of offences relating to drunkenness and public disorder and, today, of this serious offence of robbery.  We adopt the approach set out in the English Court of Appeal in R-v-Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 880 and approved by this Court in AG-v-Monteiro (27^th April,2001) Jersey Unreported.  We have asked ourselves whether Vieira's continued presence in Jersey is to the Island's detriment.  There are enough indigenous criminals in Jersey without tolerating the presence of criminals of other nationalities who have committed serious crimes or have long criminal records.  We have no hesitation in concluding that Vieira's continued presence in Jersey is to the Island's detriment.  We have asked ourselves whether there are any factors which weigh against a recommendation for deportation.  He is a single man with no dependants in Jersey.  Some siblings are resident in Jersey but the remainder of his family is resident in Portugal.  No undue hardship would be caused by his being required to return to his native country.  We therefore recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that Vieira be deported from Jersey.

 

Authorities

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

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

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

AG-v-Monteiro (27^th April, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/90].

R-v-Nazari (1980) 3 All ER 880.

Immigration Act 1971: s.3(6).

A.G -v- McFarlane  (11th December, 1989) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- Carboulec & Cooper (20^th March, 1998) Jersey Unreported [1998/56]

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

A.G -v- Turner (20^th June, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

A.G -v- O'Driscoll (19^th November, 1992) Jersey Unreported.