Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Bailey [2009] JRC 077 (17 April 2009)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the defendant's extensive criminal record, repeated similar offences, and failure to respond to previous leniency, a custodial sentence is necessary. Sentences for driving without insurance and receiving stolen goods must reflect deterrence and seriousness, but should not exceed guideline ranges without justification.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Count 1: £200 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default
  • Count 2: 4 months' imprisonment and 2-year driving disqualification
  • Count 3: £400 fine or 2 months' imprisonment in default
  • Counts 1-3 concurrent
  • Count 4: 15 months' imprisonment
  • Count 5: 15 months' imprisonment
  • Count 1 (Second Indictment): 15 months' imprisonment
  • Counts 4, 5, and Count 1 (Second Indictment) concurrent with each other but consecutive to Counts 1-3
  • Total: 19 months' imprisonment and 2-year driving disqualification

02

Material facts

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Defendant

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Value of Stolen Goods: GBP 1,133
  • Amount Paid for Stolen Goods: GBP 50
  • Fine for Count 1: GBP 200
  • Fine for Count 3: GBP 400
  • Total Imprisonment: months 19
  • Driving Disqualification: years 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Crown sought a consecutive sentence for driving without insurance to serve as a deterrent, emphasizing the importance of insurance for third parties, and requested a 12-month sentence for this offence. The Crown also sought a high sentence for receiving stolen goods.
Respondent
The defendant pleaded guilty, submitted letters in mitigation, and indicated willingness to undertake community work, though with a history of non-compliance.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948, Article 2(2)

    Sentences for driving without insurance should contain a deterrent element due to the importance of insurance for third parties.

  2. 02

    R-v-Webb (2002) 1 Cr App R (S) 22; Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing

    Sentencing for receiving stolen goods should consider factors set out in precedent and sentencing authorities.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the defendant's extensive criminal record, repeated similar offences, and failure to respond to previous leniency, a custodial sentence is necessary. Sentences for driving without insurance and receiving stolen goods must reflect deterrence and seriousness, but should not exceed guideline ranges without justification.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant's artistic talent is noted and encouraged.
  • The defendant has abused previous opportunities for rehabilitation.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • Count 1: £200 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default
  • Count 2: 4 months' imprisonment and 2-year driving disqualification
  • Count 3: £400 fine or 2 months' imprisonment in default
  • Counts 1-3 concurrent
  • Count 4: 15 months' imprisonment
  • Count 5: 15 months' imprisonment
  • Count 1 (Second Indictment): 15 months' imprisonment
  • Counts 4, 5, and Count 1 (Second Indictment) concurrent with each other but consecutive to Counts 1-3
  • Total: 19 months' imprisonment and 2-year driving disqualification

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2009] JRC 077

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to driving carelessly without a driving licence and without insurance. He has also pleaded guilty to receiving stolen goods worth £1,133 for which he paid £50.

2. He has 17 previous convictions comprising 27 offences, 16 of which are larceny or theft related offences and which include 5 convictions for receiving stolen goods, 4 of which were committed in 2007. The defendant also has a previous conviction in 2006 for driving without a licence or insurance. The defendant is unwilling to undertake unpaid community work, although at today's hearing it was indicated that he had changed his mind in this respect but the probation department have told us that on the last occasion they had some difficulty in his compliance with both probation and the community service orders.

3. On 22 nd June, 2007 the Royal Court, in imposing a probation order, gave the defendant what it described as a last chance, which he abused. The defendant no longer has the benefit of youth and is assessed at a medium risk of re-offending.

4. The Crown have moved for a consecutive sentence in relation to the driving without insurance because it submits that such a sentence should contain a deterrent element bearing in mind the importance of insurance to innocent third parties. That importance is underlined by the fact that Article 2(2) of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948 permits a fine of £2000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 18 months for such an offence. The Court endorses that approach.

5. In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty and we have considered his letter and the other letters handed to us. We note and applaud the talent he has discovered for art which he is pursuing and which we encourage him to continue. However the defendant has an appalling record and has clearly failed to learn in any way from the sentences previously imposed. There is clearly no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence. Under the Magistrate Court guidelines a deliberate second offence of driving without insurance attracts a sentence from a fine of £1,000 up to imprisonment of 2 months. The Crown have sought a sentence of 12 months for this offence and in so doing have not had regard to such guidelines. In our view driving without insurance is a serious matter but we feel that we are able to reduce the conclusions in this respect.

6. In relation to the receiving, we have regard to the factor set out in the case of R-v-Webb (2002) 1 Cr App R (S) 22 and to Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing and the authorities referred to us and conclude that the sentence sought by the Crown is on the high side.

7. We therefore sentence the defendant as follows: on count 1; £200 fine or 1 month's imprisonment in default, on count 2; 4 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 2 years, on count 3; £400 fine or 2 months' imprisonment in default, each of those counts to be concurrent. On count 4; 15 months' imprisonment, on count 5; 15 months' imprisonment and on count 1 on the Second Indictment; 15 months' imprisonment, counts 4, 5 and count 1 on the Second Indictment to be concurrent with each other but consecutive to counts 1 to 3 on the First Indictment. You will thus serve a total of 19 months' imprisonment and be disqualified from driving for 2 years. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948. R-v-Webb (2002) 1 Cr App R (S) 22 . Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. Wylie-v-AG 2002/13. Page Last Updated: 28 Jul 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

R-v-Webb (2002) 1 Cr App R (S) 22

Case cited

Wylie-v-AG 2002/13

Case cited

Criminal Justice (Young offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.