Jersey Judgment

AG v Coelho [2024] JRC 242 (01 November 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court imposed a £200 fine and 70 hours' community service concurrent to the existing order, considering the defendant's guilty plea, progress, and compliance with prior orders, and the principle that concurrent sentences are appropriate for offences committed together. The seriousness of dishonesty offences was marked by a direct alternative to custody, but further progress was encouraged by avoiding consecutive sentences.

Court disposition

convicted

Orders

  • £200 fine payable within 4 weeks with 5 days imprisonment in default
  • 70 hours' community service concurrent to existing order
  • no separate penalty on other counts

02

Material facts

Parties

Jose Coelho

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine: GBP 200
  • Community Service Hours Ordered: 70
  • Community Service Hours Completed: 105
  • Community Service Hours Remaining: 75
  • Default Imprisonment Days: 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, admitted the offences in interview, and demonstrated significant progress and compliance with prior court orders, including community service and probation.
Respondent
The Crown invited the Court to impose a consecutive order of 100 hours' community service due to the seriousness of the offences, particularly dishonesty and fraudulent use of documents.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG v Coelho [2024] JRC 006

    Concurrent sentencing for offences committed on the same day and in the same transaction.

  2. 02

    General judicial practice

    Dishonesty offences are regarded as serious by the Courts.

  3. 03

    Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014

    Direct alternative to custody for serious offences when progress and compliance are demonstrated.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court imposed a £200 fine and 70 hours' community service concurrent to the existing order, considering the defendant's guilty plea, progress, and compliance with prior orders, and the principle that concurrent sentences are appropriate for offences committed together. The seriousness of dishonesty offences was marked by a direct alternative to custody, but further progress was encouraged by avoiding consecutive sentences.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant escaped youth custody by a 'hair's breadth' previously and was given a last chance.
  • The Court commended the defendant's positive change and compliance with community service and probation.
  • The Court hopes the defendant does not re-offend or appear before the Court again.

Court disposition

convicted

  • £200 fine payable within 4 weeks with 5 days imprisonment in default
  • 70 hours' community service concurrent to existing order
  • no separate penalty on other counts

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

[2024] JRC 242

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Jose Coelho, you are 20 years old and 21 next month. You fall to be sentenced for eight motoring offences committed on 10 January this year. Those offences were committed on the same day that you were sentenced for other motoring offences in this Court to 180 hours' community service and 12-months' probation, together with a three-year disqualification from driving.

2. We have re-visited the remarks made by this Court when you were sentenced on the 10 January, 2024 ( AG v Coelho [2024] JRC 006 ). You were told on that day that you had escaped youth custody by a " hair's breadth " and the Court went on to say that you should understand if you failed to complete any part of the community service or probation order that the Court imposed that day, then you would be brought back to Court and almost certainly sent to La Moye. You were told that the orders made by the Court that day were your very last chance. Well, you are not going be sent to La Moye today, because of the progress you have made over the last 10 or 11 months.

3. We can deal with the circumstances of the offences the Court is considering today quite shortly. They were all committed on the same day in respect of the same car. You have pleaded guilty to using this motor vehicle without insurance, keeping it unregistered, the wrongful use of an insurance disc (which is an offence of dishonesty with the intent to deceive which is generally regarded as a serious offence by the Courts), fraudulent use of a registration mark and various offences in relation to the state of the vehicle - failing to maintain the exhaust system and silencer, failing to fit mirrors as specified, failing to maintain seatbelts as required and failing to maintain a headlight as required by the relevant legislation.

4. The car in question was in a public car park in St Martin on the 10 January. There was no evidence that you drove the car in this condition. The insurance disc referred to at Count 3 was stolen in September of last year and was found displayed on your vehicle. The vehicle was not registered, and you had no insurance for it. The vehicle was impounded by the Police and later released to you. We hear today that it was later sold by you for spare parts.

5. In interview, you said you had been given the vehicle for free in December. It had been towed to your address as the clutch did not work. You said that you intended to use the car for sand racing and planned to have it towed to the beach. You said that the vehicle had arrived at your home address without registration plates, and you put two different registration plates onto the car, one on the front and one on the back, and these were from old cars. You did not register the car as it had no logbook. You agreed that it was uninsured as you were disqualified from driving, and you could not obtain insurance. Examination of the vehicle revealed the defects to which we have already referred.

6. Accordingly, you admitted the offences in interview, and you pleaded guilty to these offences at the first opportunity when you appeared in the Magistrate's Court on 17 July. You will receive full credit for those pleas of guilty.

7. Now the Probation Report says that you remain at medium risk of re-conviction, but there has been a real change in your attitude as a consequence of the orders made, and during the period that has elapsed since January. We would like to read one or two extracts from the Pre-Sentence Report so that it is understood, when our remarks are published, the efforts that you have made and the extent to which people can change when provided with a chance by the Court, and given the help that you have been given by the Probation Service.

8. The Probation Officer says that there has been a noticeable and marked change in your attitude. She says, that you have always presented as polite, respectful and willing to engage, you have never failed to attend an appointment, you have never been late, and you have taken on board the suggestions that have been made to you for improving your lifestyle. You are now working full time, in a stable relationship with a woman who has written to the Court on your behalf and of course you have not re-offended during this time.

9. In relation to community service, you have not missed a single session. The Manager of the Community Service Team describes you as "being as good as gold", polite, respectful and hardworking. You have done 105 hours with 75 left. You are to be commended for the work you have done and the changes that you have made in your life. We are impressed with the letter that you have written to the Court and the letters of support from your family and those who are close to you.

10. In terms of sentencing today, the Crown invites the Court to impose a consecutive order of 100 hours' community service. We are not going to do that for two reasons. Firstly, had these matters all been dealt with on the 10 January then you would have been in principle subjected to a concurrent sentence and secondly, we do not want to discourage you from continuing to make the good progress which you have.

11. So, in relation to the counts on the Indictment, in relation to Count 1 we reduce the fine sought to £200. In relation to Count 2 we order no separate penalty. In relation to Counts 3 and 4 we order you to perform 70 hours' community service, equivalent to 2 months' youth detention. But those two orders are to run concurrent to your current order. So, on the footing that you comply with the current order and these orders you will do no additional hours to those which you are currently subject to. But in view of the seriousness of those offences we needed to mark the offending with a sentence which is a direct alternative to custody.

12. We order no separate penalty on Counts 5, 6, 7 and 8 and accordingly the total sentence is a £200 fine and 70 hours' community service concurrent to your existing order. We hope you continue to make the progress that you have, and we earnestly hope that you do not appear before this Court or any other court again. The fine will need to be paid within 4 weeks with 5 days imprisonment in default of payment. Authorities AG v Coelho [2024] JRC 006 Motor Traffic (Third-Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948 Motor Vehicle Registration (Jersey) Law 1993 Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014 Louis v AG [2010] JRC 170 Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462 Page Last Updated: 15 Jan 2025 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map 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.

AG v Coelho [2024] JRC 006

Case cited

Louis v AG [2010] JRC 170

Case cited

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462

Case cited

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

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Motor Vehicle Registration (Jersey) Law 1993

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 2014

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.