Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Cox [2011] JRC 087 (19 April 2011)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Concurrent sentences imposed to provide hope for rehabilitation, balancing punishment with potential for reform, considering prior convictions and seriousness of offences.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment
  • Disqualified from holding a driving license for 3 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered

02

Material facts

Parties

Cox

Defendant Counsel: Your Counsel

Crown Advocate

Prosecution Counsel: Crown Advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Imprisonment Duration: 3
  • Driving Disqualification Duration: 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Your Counsel argued for concurrent sentences and highlighted courses completed in prison, suggesting rehabilitation potential.
Respondent
Crown Advocate justified the need for custodial sentences due to the seriousness of offences and prior criminal record.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Professor Thomas

    Jump effect - undesirability of increasing sentences too rapidly

  2. 02

    Court reasoning

    Custodial sentences are almost always imposed for housebreaking at night due to distress caused

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Concurrent sentences imposed to provide hope for rehabilitation, balancing punishment with potential for reform, considering prior convictions and seriousness of offences.

Obiter and limits

  • If you want to achieve something in your life you could do so.
  • We hope we will not see you again.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • Sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment
  • Disqualified from holding a driving license for 3 years
  • Forfeiture and destruction of 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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2011] JRC 087

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. This defendant is to be sentenced for numerous offences involving dishonesty, including two serious offences of breaking into private dwelling houses at night and the use thereafter of the stolen credit and debit cards. Valuable property was dishonestly obtained. Housebreaking, particularly at night time, is an offence which invariably causes great distress to householders by reason of the invasion of privacy and custodial sentences are almost always imposed.

2. Cox has a very bad criminal record involving many previous convictions for offences of dishonesty. He was released from prison after an 18 month sentence and was at liberty only for 6 weeks before the offending recommenced.

3. The conclusions of the Crown Advocate are entirely justified and the Court has given long consideration as to whether they should be granted. We note that the last sentence was for 18 months and we have had regard to what Professor Thomas calls the "jump effect", that is the undesirability of increasing sentences too rapidly. Your Counsel has told us of the courses that you have completed in the prison and it seems to us that if you want to achieve something in your life you could do so. We are going to make the sentences concurrent because we want to give you some light at the end of the tunnel; we have to punish you but we hope that you will make something of your life when you come out of prison having served your sentence.

4. The conclusions are therefore varied so that all the sentences will run concurrently. You are sentenced to a total of 3 years' imprisonment and you are disqualified from holding a driving license for a period of 3 years. We hope we will not see you again.

5. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948. Whelan's Aspects on Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077 . AG-v-McCallum [2008] JRC 119 . AG-v-O'Shea [2007] JRC 076 . AG-v-Wakeling [2007] JRC 166 . AG-v-Cox [2009] JRC 224 . Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 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.

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077

Case cited

AG-v-McCallum [2008] JRC 119

Case cited

AG-v-O'Shea [2007] JRC 076

Case cited

AG-v-Wakeling [2007] JRC 166

Case cited

AG-v-Cox [2009] JRC 224

Case cited

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

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.