Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC194

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

5^th November 2004.

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Amy Leonie Le Masurier

Luke James Oeillet

 

Amy Leonie Le Masurier

 

1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny. (Count 1).
1 count of:	Illegal entry and larceny (Count 2).
23 counts of:	Obtaining goods by false pretences (Counts 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 41).
16 counts of:	Aiding, assisting or participating in obtaining goods by false pretences (Counts 3A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 10A, 11A, 16A, 17A, 18A, 20A, 22A, 24A, 33A, 35A, 37A, 39A).

 

[The remaining counts fell away].

Age:     20.

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

Le Masurier and Oeillet were in a relationship and were both heroin addicts. Count 1 related to Le Masurier and Oeillet going to a flat which Le Masurier previously resided in and entering the flat using a key which she had retained.  They were looking for cash to steal but took a television and CD player which they then sold for the sum of £150.00.  Both were subsequently arrested and they denied stealing the items but claimed that they had simply found them in a rubbish bin and believed that they had been dumped.  They subsequently made statements under caution admitting the offences.  Both expressed remorse for their behaviour.  Oeillet was dealt with in relation to this offence and other matters in the Magistrate's Court but Le Masurier was not as other matters were being investigated.  Those other matters gave rise to the other counts on the Indictment.

In September, 2003, Le Masurier and Oeillet visited Le Masurier's Aunt and stole three cheque books.  They visited her premises again in January, 2004, and stole a fourth cheque book.  They then used a total of 41 cheques so as to obtain goods or cash.  The goods which were purchased were primarily cigarettes which were then sold for cash and that cash was then used to buy heroin for both of them.  In consequence of the issuing of the cheques, goods to the total value of £5,338.13 were obtained and £1,800.00 in cash.

Both accused were interviewed at length and both made admissions and were generally co-operative with the police although both sought to minimise their respective roles placing greater responsibility on their co-accused.  The Crown's stance was that this was a joint enterprise in which both accused played their relevant parts and both were equally culpable.  On this basis the Crown had accepted the pleas that had been entered even though on occasions neither accused had pleaded guilty to the principal offence and both had pleaded guilty to the alternative of aiding or assisting.  There was a degree of planning involved in the offences in that the accused admitted that Le Masurier had signed the majority of cheques as the cheque books were in the name of a female and she had presented the majority of the cheques in the shops for that reason.  They had looked for shops which did not have CCTV so as to minimise the risk of them being identified and detected.

The facts of this case provided a classic example of how those addicted to drugs and in this case heroin, were driven to commit acquisitive crimes so as to fund that addiction.  The Crown took a serious view of the offending given the nature of the offending and the length of time over which it had occurred.

Whilst on bail and on the same day that a variation in his bail conditions had been granted by the Magistrate's Court, Oeillet then went to a shop and stole a Sony walkman (Count 44).  He was then remanded in custody.

In consequence of Oeillet's offending he was in breach of a Probation Order imposed by the Magistrate's Court in relation to the charge which gave rise to Court 1 on the Indictment against Le Masurier and a further offence of breaking and entry and larceny of £50.  He had also been placed on Probation for driving a car without insurance and larceny.  He therefore fell to be re-sentenced for that offending in consequence of his new offending.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Le Masurier had the benefit of guilty pleas albeit there was strong evidence implicating her in the offence in the form of identification evidence and handwriting evidence.  She was generally co-operative at interview.  She was a young offender and fell within the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994.  She only had one previous offence of a minor nature.  The background reports revealed an unsettled upbringing.  As at the time of sentencing she was approximately 7 months pregnant.  There was also a letter from the victim who wrote in support of her niece and in particularly expressed the desire that Le Masurier did not receive a custodial sentence for her offending.

The Defence described the case as an exceptional one and that there was strong recommendations contained within the reports for the imposition of a on-custodial sentence.  She was a young offender aged 19 at the time of the offences being committed.  The facts as set out in the Crown's Summary of Facts were accepted particularly as Le Masurier's version of events had also been set out in detail.  Her guilty plea and co-operation were emphasised and she was remorseful and a letter to the Court was handed up.  She was essentially of previous good character and the question of delay was also raised.  She had a difficult background with a troubled upbringing and despite previous failed attempts she was now making good progress in detoxification and getting her life in order.  She was in regular contact with the Alcohol and Drugs Service and also on a voluntarily basis with the Probation Service.  She had the support of her family.

 

Previous Convictions:

One previous conviction for drunk and disorderly.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 1:	2 years' youth detention.
Count 2:	2 years' youth detention.
Count 3A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 4:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 5:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 6A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 7A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 8A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 9:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 10A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 11A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 12:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 13:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 14:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 15:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 16A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 17A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 18A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 19:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 20A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 21:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 22A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 23:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 24A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 25:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 26:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 27:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 28:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 29:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 30:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 31:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 32:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 33A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 34:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 35A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 36:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 37A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 38:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 39A:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 40:	18 months' youth detention.
Count 41:	18 months' youth detention.

 

TOTAL: 2 years' youth detention.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

2 years' Probation Order.

120 hours' Community Service Order.

Both the accused pleaded guilty to a large number of offences committed between September, 2003, and January, 2004.  An aggravating feature was that the cheques were stolen from Le Masurier's Aunt.  This involved a breach of trust.  In relation to Oeillet there was also an aggravating factor in that on the date that his bail conditions were varied by the Magistrate's Court, he then went out and committed a further offence.  Approximately £5,000 worth of goods were obtained and £1,800 in cash.  The Crown's approach to this matter as being a joint enterprise was the correct one.  The Court however felt able to distinguish between them on the basis of the relevant mitigation available to the accused.

In relation to Le Masurier the Court gave anxious consideration to her case.  It distinguished her case from that of Oeillet so as not to impose a custodial and she was advised that she was lucky that her Aunt had written such a generous letter and the Court had regard to the fact that she had kept out of trouble since the offences came to light.

 

 

Luke James Oeillet

 

1 count of:	Illegal entry and larceny. (Count 2).
2 counts of:	Obtaining goods by false pretences (Counts 16, 20)
37 counts of:	Aiding, assisting or participating in obtaining goods by false pretences (Counts 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 11A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, 17A, 18A, 19A, 21A, 22A, 23A, 24A, 25A 26A 27A, 28A, 29A, 30A, 31A, 32A, 33A, 34A, 35A, 36A, 37A, 38A, 39A, 40A, 41A).
2 counts of:	Obtaining money by false pretences (Counts 42, 43).
1 count of:	Larceny (Count 44).

 

Breach of a 12 months' Probation Order with 11 months' disqualification from driving made on 12^th March, 2004, in Magistrates Court, following conviction on 2 counts of breaking and entering and larceny (Counts 1 and 2), 1 count of driving uninsured (Count 3), and 1 count of larceny (Count 4).

 

Age:     22.

 

Plea:    Guilty; breach admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

See Le Masurier above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

In relation to Oeillet the Crown stated that the mitigation available to him was his guilty pleas and his general co-operation.  He too was a relatively young man aged 22 albeit he had an unimpressive record.  He had not previously received a custodial sentence but had been on remand since 30^th July, 2004.  His offending was aggravated by the fact that he offended whilst on bail and was also now in breach of the Probation Order previously imposed.  Regard was had to the contents of the reports.

Defence Counsel emphasised the offences committed against the backdrop of the heroin addiction.  The offence of illegal entry was at the lower end of the scale.  He had pleaded guilty and had been co-operative.  A letter was handed up from the accused in which he expressed remorse for his actions.  He still had the benefit of youth and the vast majority of his previous criminal record was for relatively minor motoring offences.  He had now detoxified whilst in Prison and had undergone random drugs tests whilst in Prison.  He had the support of his parents who were prepared to provide him with a home and employment.  Oeillet was aware that a custodial sentence was likely but Counsel sought a lesser sentence than sought by the Crown.  It was further contended that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate as recommended by the Reports.

 

Previous Convictions:

Seven previous convictions involving a total of 16 offences including grave and criminal assault, possession of a controlled drug, dishonesty, motoring offences and public order.

 

Conclusions:

 

Count 2:	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 3A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 4A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 5A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 6A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 7A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 8A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 9A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 10A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 11A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 12A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 13A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 14A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 15A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 16:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 17A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 18A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 19A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 20:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 21A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 22A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 23A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 24A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 25A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 26A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 27A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 28A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 29A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 30A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 31A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 32A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 33A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 34A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 35A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 36A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 37A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 38A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 39A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 40A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 41A:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 42:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 43:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 44:	1 month's imprisonment, all concurrent.
Breach proceedings
Count 1	2 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	18 months' imprisonment.
Count 3:	3 months' imprisonment, 11 months disqualification from driving.
Count 4:	3 week's imprisonment, all concurrent, and concurrent with sentences moved for on present indictment

 

TOTAL: 2 years' imprisonment.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

Count 2:

18 months' imprisonment.

 

All other conclusions granted.

Total: 18 months' imprisonment.

Both the accused pleaded guilty to a large number of offences committed between September, 2003, and January, 2004.  An aggravating feature was that the cheques were stolen from Le Masurier's Aunt.  This involved a breach of trust.  In relation to Oeillet there was also an aggravating factor in that on the date that his bail conditions were varied by the Magistrate's Court, he then went out and committed a further offence.  Approximately £5,000 worth of goods were obtained and £1,800 in cash.  The Crown's approach to this matter as being a joint enterprise was the correct one.  The Court however felt able to distinguish between them on the basis of the relevant mitigation available to the accused.

He had a bad record and was in breach of Probation.  By way of contrast Le Masurier was of previous good character except for one minor offence Oeillet was 22 whilst Le Masurier was 19 at the time.  Oeillet was advised that he had to continue with the efforts that he made whilst in custody otherwise his life would be one of misery and degradation.  The Court wished to encourage him in those efforts and therefore was prepared to reduce slightly the Crown's conclusions.

 

 

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

Advocate J. Bell for A.M. Le Masurier.

Advocate J.C. Martin for L.J. Oeillet.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Both these Defendant have pleaded guilty to a large number of offences of dishonesty committed between September, 2003 and July, 2004.  It is an aggravating feature that the offences involved the abuse of cheques stolen from Le Masurier's aunt and a consequential breach of trust.   It is a further aggravating feature, so far as Oeillet is concerned, that the last offence on the indictment was committed on the very day of his being granted bail by this Court.

2.        Goods worth more than £5,000 were obtained as well as more than £1,500 in cash.  Each accused has blamed the other, but the Crown Advocate has approached the matter on the basis that this was a joint enterprise and that both are equally culpable for these offences.  We think that that is the correct approach.

3.        Most of the offences were committed to fund the accuseds' respective addiction to heroin.  While the responsibility for these offences is equally shared there are important differences in the backgrounds of the two accused and the mitigation available to them. 

4.        Oeillet has a bad record involving seven appearances before the courts.  He is in breach of a Probation Order as a result of the offence committed whilst on bail.  Le Masurier is, apart from one minor offence, of previously good character.  Furthermore, Oeillet is 22, while Le Masurier is 20, and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 which prevents the court from imposing custodial sentences other than in certain specified circumstances.  We will therefore deal with each of the accused individually.

5.        Oeillet you have got to continue the efforts that you have been making if you are going to avoid a miserable and degrading future as a result of your addiction to drugs.  We want to encourage you to continue the work which you are doing with Mrs Rodrigues and Mrs Best because it is only in that way that you are going to break clear of the problems which you have had in the past.  It is for that reason only that we are going to reduce slightly the conclusions of the Crown Advocate and the Court is going to sentence you on count 2, to 18 months' imprisonment; on each of counts 3 - 41A inclusive to 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent; and Count 42, 43, to 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent; on Count 44 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. 

6.        So far as the offences of which you are in breach of the probation order are concerned on count 1, you will be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; on count 2, to 18 months' imprisonment, count 3, driving without insurance to 3 months' imprisonment; and count 4 - larceny - to 3 weeks' imprisonment.  All those offences to be concurrent with each other and concurrent with the previous sentences making a total of 18 months' imprisonment.

7.        Le Masurier, the Court has given anxious consideration to your case.  As I have said, there are distinctions between you and your co-accused.  It is only because of those distinctions that we are not going to impose a custodial sentence.  We are going to impose a sentence which we hope will keep you out of trouble in the future but will also punish you for the offences which you have committed.  You are very lucky that your aunt wrote that very generous letter to the Court.  We have also taken account of all the other letters we have received, and of the fact that you have kept out of trouble since this matter first came to light at the beginning of this year, and you are entitled to credit for that.

8.        We are going to impose non-custodial sentences on you as follows.  On all the offences to which you have pleaded guilty and on which you have to be sentenced this afternoon you will be placed on probation for 2 years, subject to the condition that you be of good behaviour during that time, and that you will be liable to be brought back before the Court if you commit any further offences, and that you must live and work as directed by your probation officer.  The Probation Order is also subject to the conditions recommended by the Alcohol and Drug Service namely that you will attend the Alcohol and Drug Service for a period of 12 months, that you will remain abstinent from all non-prescribed drugs, to be confirmed by routine and random drugs tests, and that you comply with the treatment goals as set by the Service.

9.        We are also going to order you to complete community service in the amount of 120 hours to the satisfaction of the community service organiser and we declare that the equivalent custodial sentence in default of satisfactory completion of that community service is one of 9 months' youth detention.

Authorities

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