Jersey Judgment

AG v Cooper [2005] JRC 036 (01 April 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the defendant's persistent offending, high risk of re-offending, and breach of a community service order, a custodial sentence totaling 18 months is necessary despite mitigation for guilty plea, youth, and efforts at rehabilitation.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Count 1: 3 months' imprisonment
  • Count 2: 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1
  • Count 3: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent
  • Count 4: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent
  • Total: 12 months' imprisonment on indictment
  • Breach of Community Service Order: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count, consecutive to indictment sentences
  • Disqualified from driving for 24 months on counts 2, 3, and 4

02

Material facts

Parties

Cooper

Defendant Counsel: defence counsel

Crown Advocate

Prosecution Counsel: Crown Advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Community Service Hours Ordered: 170
  • Total Imprisonment (months): 18
  • Driving Disqualification (months): 24

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant pleaded guilty, admitted breaches, is young, has made efforts to remain drug free, and is using time in prison profitably.
Respondent
The defendant has an appalling record, high risk of re-offending, prior custodial and non-custodial sentences have failed to moderate behaviour, and punishment is necessary.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Ed'n): pp. 196 - 198

    Sentencing must reflect seriousness of offences, prior record, risk of re-offending, and mitigation for guilty plea and youth.

  2. 02

    Graham -v- AG (1st October, 1996) Jersey Unreported; [1996/177]

    Breach of community service order warrants custodial sentence consecutive to other sentences.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the defendant's persistent offending, high risk of re-offending, and breach of a community service order, a custodial sentence totaling 18 months is necessary despite mitigation for guilty plea, youth, and efforts at rehabilitation.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant is not unintelligent and can make something of his life if he chooses.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • Count 1: 3 months' imprisonment
  • Count 2: 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Count 1
  • Count 3: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent
  • Count 4: 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent
  • Total: 12 months' imprisonment on indictment
  • Breach of Community Service Order: 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count, consecutive to indictment sentences
  • Disqualified from driving for 24 months on counts 2, 3, and 4

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

[2005] JRC 036

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. This defendant is to be sentenced on an indictment of 4 counts, including larceny and various motoring offences, and for further offences involving the misuse of drugs, and more motoring offences for which he was ordered to perform 170 hours of community service on 1 st July, 2004. He is in breach of that order.

2. Cooper has an appalling record involving 16 previous appearances before the courts. He is still only 22. He has served sentences of imprisonment and has been given non-custodial sentences on many occasions. None of this has moderated his behaviour and he is said to be at high risk of re-offending. His life in some respects is chaotic and unstructured and he pays no consideration towards the interests of others.

3. In mitigation he has pleaded guilty to the offences on the current indictment and admitted the breaches of the Magistrate's Order of the 1 st July, 2004. He is still a young man, and he is entitled to some residual credit for that. He has also made efforts, so we are told by his counsel, to remain drug free whilst on remand at the prison and that is also a very positive factor.

4. We have taken account of everything that your counsel has said very eloquently on your behalf. We have considered all the reports placed before us and we have read your letter and we have noted that you are using your time profitably at the prison. All these things are to the good. You are not, we are quite sure, an unintelligent young man, and you can make something of your life if you will, but in the meantime we must punish you for the offences which you continue to commit.

5. The conclusions of the Crown Advocate are right and proper and they are granted. You are accordingly sentenced on Count 1 to 3 months' imprisonment; on Count 2 to 9 months' imprisonment, consecutive. On Count 3 to 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent; on Count 4 to 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 12 months' imprisonment. For the breach of the Community Service Order you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, concurrent on each of the counts relating to that order, concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the 12 months' on the indictment; and you are disqualified for a period of 24 months' on counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment. Authorities Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): pp. 196 - 198. Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended. Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948, as amended. Graham -v- AG (1 st October, 1996) Jersey Unreported; [1996/177]. Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2015 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.

Graham -v- AG (1st October, 1996) Jersey Unreported; [1996/177]

Case cited

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956, as amended

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1948, as amended

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.