AG -v- Cooper and G [2012] JRC 133A (06 July 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] JRC 133A
- 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
Custodial sentences imposed due to repeated offending, breach of probation, and failure to respond to non-custodial measures; youth detention for G justified by persistent breaches and lack of engagement.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
Orders
- Cooper sentenced to total of 30 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years; sentences structured as concurrent and consecutive as specified.
- G sentenced to total of 10 months' youth detention; sentences consecutive as specified.
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.
- No order on breach of probation.
02
Material facts
Parties
Cooper
Defendant Counsel: Advocate for CooperG
Defendant Counsel: Advocate LandickAmounts and remedies
- Cooper Total Imprisonment: 30
- Cooper Driving Disqualification: years 3
- G Total Youth Detention: months 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Sentencing for repeat offences
- 02
Breach of probation
- 03
Appropriateness of custodial vs non-custodial sentences
- 04
Application of youth detention for young offenders
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Mitigation for Cooper based on guilty plea, efforts to change, attendance at Silkworth Lodge, impact on son, probation report recommendation, and references. For G, arguments by Advocate Landick and letters from G and his mother regarding reluctance to impose youth detention.
- Respondent
- Court considers the seriousness of offences, breach of probation, repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, and lack of engagement with probation service.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994
Reluctance to impose youth detention except where non-custodial sentences have failed
- 02
Sentencing practice
Concurrent and consecutive sentencing
- 03
Statutory authority
Forfeiture and destruction of drugs
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Custodial sentences imposed due to repeated offending, breach of probation, and failure to respond to non-custodial measures; youth detention for G justified by persistent breaches and lack of engagement.
Obiter and limits
- Hope expressed for rehabilitation and encouragement for both defendants to maintain desire to change.
- Court notes potential for G to benefit from youth detention resources.
Court disposition
conviction and sentencing
- Cooper sentenced to total of 30 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years; sentences structured as concurrent and consecutive as specified.
- G sentenced to total of 10 months' youth detention; sentences consecutive as specified.
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered.
- No order on breach of probation.
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. Cooper, you have an appalling record. You are now before us for two offences of breaking and entry and larceny, one of larceny, and some motoring offences including taking and driving away, dangerous driving, failing to stop and report, and the accompanying offences of driving without insurance and driving whilst disqualified. All this places you in breach of a Probation Order which the Magistrate's Court imposed.
2. Your Advocate has spoken in mitigation. She has referred to your guilty plea, to your efforts to turn your life around in attending Silkworth Lodge; to your motivation to change, particularly you have realised the effect that your life is having on your son; and she refers to the probation report and its recommendation. We have also read your letter and the references.
3. But in all the circumstances these offences coming on top of your record and your breach of probation means that we cannot deal with this by way of a non-custodial sentence. However, we do think we can reduce it a little in order to give you a sense of encouragement and we hope that when you come out you will maintain this desire to change, which you say has come upon you whilst you have been on remand.
4. The sentence of the Court is as follows:- on the First Indictment:- Count 1; 1 month's imprisonment, Count 2; 18 months' imprisonment, those two are concurrent. On the Third Indictment, on Count 1; 12 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years', Count 3; 6 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years', Count 4; 10 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years', Count 5; 12 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years, those sentences on Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 are to be concurrent with each other but consecutive to the sentences on the First Indictment. Count 7; 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent with the First Indictment. No order on the breach of probation. So that makes a total of 30 months' imprisonment and disqualification from driving for 3 years.
5. G, despite your young age you too have built up quite a record and you are now before us for breaking and entry and larceny and possession of cannabis. Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to you and this Court is always very reluctant to send somebody of your age to youth detention. But you have repeatedly breached the Probation Orders which have been given to you and also the Binding-Over Orders. The background report makes it clear that you have shown no willingness to engage with the Probation Service. We were addressed at very considerable length by Advocate Landick and we have considered what he said and also your letter and that of your mother.
6. But in all the circumstances we are quite satisfied that there is no alternative to youth detention on the grounds that you have a history of failing to respond to non-custodial sentences and you have shown yourself to be unwilling or unable to respond to non-custodial penalties. You have been given ample chances and it is now time that you appreciate that if you continue to offend you will go to youth detention. Nevertheless you are an intelligent young person, and you have great potential if you choose to use it. We hope that you will maintain your desire to try and cut away from the life style you have had in the past and we hope that you will take advantage of what is on offer in youth detention, because there are things there that can help you when you are released. You may be subject to supervision on your release.
7. The sentence of the Court in your case is 9 months' youth detention on Count 7 of the Third Indictment and 1 month's youth detention, consecutive, on Count 1 of the Fourth Indictment, making a total of 10 months' youth detention.
8. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948. AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19. AG-v-Gaffney [1995] JLR N 22 Magistrate's Court Road Traffic Offences Sentencing Guidelines. Page Last Updated: 02 Feb 2017 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.