AG -v- Bree [2005] JRC 177 (19 December 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 177
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The seriousness of the offences, particularly affray with weapons in a public place and while on remand, outweighs mitigating factors, justifying a custodial sentence despite recommendations for a non-custodial penalty.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- Fine of £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default on Count 1
- 2 months' imprisonment on Count 2
- 1 week's imprisonment on Count 3
- 7 months' imprisonment on Count 4
- 18 months' imprisonment on Count 5
- 1 month's imprisonment on Count 6
- 3 months' imprisonment on Count 7
- All sentences to run concurrently, total 18 months' imprisonment and £100 fine
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered
02
Material facts
Amounts and remedies
- Fine: GBP 100
- Total Imprisonment (months): 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the offence of affray and related offences warrant a custodial sentence
- 02
Whether mitigating circumstances justify a non-custodial penalty
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant pleaded guilty and was under stress due to the death of a friend's stepfather, seeking consideration for a non-custodial penalty as recommended in the probation report.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the seriousness of the affray, involving weapons in a public place with children present and while on remand for larceny, warranted a custodial sentence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
judgment
Affray is a serious offence, especially when committed in public with weapons and in the presence of children.
- 02
judgment
Credit is given for a guilty plea.
- 03
judgment
The totality principle applies in sentencing to ensure the overall sentence is proportionate.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The seriousness of the offences, particularly affray with weapons in a public place and while on remand, outweighs mitigating factors, justifying a custodial sentence despite recommendations for a non-custodial penalty.
Obiter and limits
- Stress from personal circumstances is not a justification for criminal behaviour.
- Careful consideration was given to the probation report recommendations.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- Fine of £100 or 1 week's imprisonment in default on Count 1
- 2 months' imprisonment on Count 2
- 1 week's imprisonment on Count 3
- 7 months' imprisonment on Count 4
- 18 months' imprisonment on Count 5
- 1 month's imprisonment on Count 6
- 3 months' imprisonment on Count 7
- All sentences to run concurrently, total 18 months' imprisonment and £100 fine
- Forfeiture and destruction of the drugs ordered
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. Affray is a serious offence. Putting members of the public in fear of physical violence by carrying knives and a stick in the immediate neighbourhood of a toy shop when children were present is unacceptable behaviour. Furthermore, the offence was committed whilst you were on remand for the offences of larceny. We understand that you were under stress from your experience of the death of your friend's stepfather but that was no justification for your behaviour. We accept that you have pleaded guilty to the offences and that you are entitled to credit for that.
2. We have given careful consideration to the recommendations in the probation report, but we think that this is not an appropriate case for the imposition of a non-custodial penalty. Applying the totality factor we are going to modify slightly some of the conclusions of the Crown Advocate and you are therefore, sentenced as follows. On Count 1, you will be fined the sum of £100 or in default of payment 1 week's imprisonment. On Count 2, you will be sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment. On Count 3, to 1 week's imprisonment. On Count 4, to 7 months' imprisonment. On Count 5, to 18 months' imprisonment. On Count 6, to 1 month's imprisonment. On Count 7 to 3 months' imprisonment. All those sentences will run concurrently, making a total of 18 months' imprisonment and a fine of £100. The forfeiture and destruction of the drugs is ordered. Authorities Harrison -v- AG [2004]JCA046. AG -v- Shewan (1999) JRC022. AG -v- Skinner [2003]JRC93A. AG -v- Buesnel (1996) JLR26. Page Last Updated: 29 Jun 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.