Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC198

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

21^st November 2008

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Clapham and Newcombe.

The Attorney General

-v-

David Hall

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

1 count of:	Breaking and entry and larceny.  (Count 1).
1 count of:	Larceny.  (Count 2).
3 counts of:	Having in a public place an offensive weapon, contrary to Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.  (Counts 3-5).

Age:  27.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 28^th May, 2008, Hall and an unnamed accomplice filled his car at Robert's Garage, Springfield Road, St Helier, with petrol worth £20 and left the garage without paying.  (Count 2).

An hour later, Hall and his accomplice criminally broke and entered the premises known as the Rectory, La Marquanderie, in the Parish of St Brelade, and stole a safe and its contents, and a laptop computer.  The owner's son arrived at the Rectory to find Hall and his accomplice trying to load the safe into the back of Hall's car.  There was a brief confrontation after which Hall and the accomplice made a hasty get away, leaving the safe in the driveway.  The laptop, however, was never recovered.  (Count 1).

Hall was arrested in his car the following morning.  At the time he had in his possession a Ghurka knife (Count 3), an ASP extendable baton (Count 4) and a lock knife (Count 5).  These offensive weapons had been in his car at the time of the break and entry. 

It was accepted that Hall's offending, past and present, had occurred as a result of him needing to fund his heroin addiction. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Remorse.  There had been a period of approximately 8 years when he was free from heroin addiction and when he was reported to have been "a role model" and "sponsor" for other drug addicts seeking assistance within Narcotics Anonymous.

On arrest Hall had asked to be placed in custody to assist in dealing with his drug addiction.

Previous Convictions:

3 convictions for 13 previous offences, including 7 theft and kindred offences and 2 drugs offences.

Conclusions:

Count 1:	2 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 weeks' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 but concurrent to Counts 4 and 5.
Count 4:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 but concurrent to Counts 3 and 5.
Count 5:	6 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1 but concurrent to Counts 3 and 4.

Total: 3 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture and destruction of weapons sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court noted that when confronted by the owner's son, Hall and his accomplice had fled rather than fight, and that while the weapons had been in the boot of the car, they had not been used.  The Court said however that any confrontation with a burglar was extremely distressing and that the Crown's recommendations were therefore entirely justified.

The Court however noted several exceptional circumstances, including the fact that Hall had already spent 6 months' on remand (the equivalent to a 9 months' sentence) and that he had "done excellent work for rehabilitation" generally, and ordered instead that Hall perform 180 hours' Community Service, the alternative of a 12 months' imprisonment sentence.

Count 1:	180 hours' Community Service Order and 2 years' Probation Order.
Count 2:	2 years' Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 3:	2 years' Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 4:	2 years' Probation Order, concurrent.
Count 5:	2 years' Probation Order, concurrent.

Total: 180 hours' Community Service Order and 2 years' Probation Order.

Forfeiture and destruction of weapons ordered.

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. J. Clarke for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        David Hall broke into one of the Island's rectories with another man and stole a safe and laptop computer.  The two men were interrupted by the householder returning to the premises and the defendant and his companion abandoned the safe but took with them the laptop computer which has not been recovered.  The defendant was found in possession of a baton and a Ghurkha knife but those weapons were in the boot of his car and were not associated with the break in.  No violence was offered to the householder and indeed, the defendant made himself scarce as quickly as he could.  However, as the Court has said on many occasions, the mere fact of breaking into domestic premises almost always carries with it a sense of invasion and is extremely distressing to the householder whose privacy has been disturbed.  The Crown Advocate's conclusions are accordingly, entirely justified.

2.        The Court has before it a strong recommendation both from the Probation Officer and from the Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service, recommending that at this particular time, the defendant would benefit from a number of non-custodial measures.  He has served 6 months on remand in custody which is the equivalent of a 9 months' prison sentence.  He is a heroin addict who, according to the Drug and Alcohol Prison Service Manager, has done very good work over the last 7 years, until his relapse in March 2008, in helping others to overcome their addiction.  Furthermore, the defendant continues to have support from his parents who are prepared to take him back into their home and to offer support to the different agencies in ensuring that he complies with any orders that are made.

3.        We are going to impose non-custodial sentences upon you because we accept all the things which your Advocate has said on your behalf.  We accept that you did have this relapse but that you are determined to turn your back on heroin and that you are going to do your best with the assistance of the different agencies and your parents to lead a decent life in future.  We are going to punish you nonetheless for the break-in which you committed which, as I have explained, is a serious offence, but you will not go to prison unless you fail to comply with these different non-custodial orders.

4.        We are going to place you on probation for a period of 2 years subject to the usual conditions that you live and work as directed by your Probation Officer and be of good behaviour during that time and also that you are liable to a treatment order which means that you must comply with all the directions of Dr Gafoor or anyone working under his authority.  We are also going to order you to carry out 180 hours of Community Service which we declare to be the equivalent of a 12 month prison sentence.  We hope that we are not going to see you again.  We are giving you a chance and we hope that you take it.

5.        We order the destruction of the weapons.

Authorities

AG-v-Moreira [2003] JRC 083A.

AG-v-Da Silva [1997] JRC 218.

AG-v-Le Lai [2003] JRC 023.

Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.

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