AG -v- Cox, Hannaford, Hawkins, Qari and Viveiros [2015] JRC 156 (16 July 2015)

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. Mr Cox, you felt you had been defrauded of £90 by someone who sold you tablets as valium when they were not and, on the night in question, we are satisfied that you led a group comprising you and your four co-accused to break in to the property run by the Shelter with a view to obtaining the address of your supplier. This involved kicking in the door and then trying to open the post boxes for individual rooms. You smashed a CCTV with a hammer and the remainder of you followed him in, entering the building and helped him in relation to the boxes, some of you by actually fiddling with them, others simply by standing and watching, and on the way out, Cox, you used the hammer to cause damage to a moped which you mistakenly thought belonged to someone else. You have a terrible record with many previous convictions for breaking and entering, and this offending puts you in breach of a Probation Order, a Community Service Order and a suspended sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court in December 2014.

2. We have listened very carefully to what Advocate Dale has said, most eloquently, on your behalf; in particular she has emphasised that you do appear to be changing your approach. In the past you have appeared to be headed on a path of self-destruction but, she says, and this is supported by the background report, on this occasion whilst on remand you are adopting a different attitude; you are trying to take advantage of the help that can be given to you in prison and, she says on your behalf, you are determined to try and be the father that you wish you had had. We commend you for that and we are taking all that into account because had it not been for that, the sentence would have been higher.

3. Now you, very realistically, accept that there is no alternative to prison in your case given your previous record and I want to emphasise that the Court takes a very serious view of breaking and entering residential property, particularly at night. The case of AG-v-Da Silva [1997] JLR N 14a speaks of a sentence of the region of 3 years even on a guilty plea for such offending. We do not think it is necessary to pass a sentence of that length but, nevertheless, we think that the 18 months moved for by the Crown is too low given your previous record and we think the minimum sentence we can pass for the breaking and entering is one of 21 months. In doing that we do, of course, take account of the sentence we are going to pass on your co-accused but we do consider that your role and your previous record means that a totally different sentence is required. We are also going to impose 5 months for the breach of the Community Service and Probation Orders for those offences.

4. The Crown originally moved for a further 5 months for the activation of the suspended sentence which you were given in the Magistrate's Court, but it seems to us that that was an unlawful sentence as being contrary to Article 2(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences)(Jersey) Law 2002 . On that basis it would be wrong for us to activate that now. Because it was a wrong sentence originally it would certainly be wrong for us now to activate it and actually send you to prison for that period; so we are going to make no order on the suspended sentence. But, nevertheless, putting those together, on Count 1; 21 months, on Count 2; 3 months' and on Count 3; 3 months, all of those concurrent, and then for the three offences of driving whilst disqualified, without insurance and under the influence, we pass a sentence of 5 months' imprisonment, concurrent with each other, but consecutive to Count 1 of the current Indictment, which makes 26 months' imprisonment in all.

5. We also order the forfeiture and destruction of the hammer.

6. Turning to the other four of you, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Breaking and entering, as I have just said, is regarded as a serious offence where it is in relation to residential property and at night, and this is because it can cause so much fear and distress to the people whose houses are broken into and indeed we have heard that some of the residents of this particular accommodation have been distressed by what happened, even though, as Advocate Dale emphasised, and we accept, you only got as far as the lobby. Nevertheless, you have all stood at risk of being sent to youth detention. But you are all still young, Hannaford, you are 20, and the rest of you are 19. Most importantly, none of you have any significant criminal records. In the case of Hannaford and Qari, you have no convictions at all, Hawkins you have been before the Court on one occasion for various motoring offences, and you, Viveiros, have one previous conviction when you were 15. Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 makes it clear that we should not impose youth detention unless we are satisfied there is no alternative way of dealing with you. Now the probation report recommends that there is in this case; community service and community service and probation for Hawkins. We are going to agree with those conclusions and so you are not going to go to youth detention on this occasion.

7. The sentence for each of you is that you will serve 90 hours of community service on Count 1 or 3 months' youth detention in default, and in the case of Hawkins, you will also be placed on probation for 9 months; this is to help you address some of the issues which are raised in the reports.

8. I just want to give all four of you this warning. You have come before the Royal Court for a serious offence. If you do not carry out the community service to the letter, turning up when you should, doing what you are told, carrying out the work conscientiously, or, of course, if you reoffend, then you will be brought back here and resentenced and at that stage there will be a high risk of you actually being sent to youth detention. So we hope very much that the four of you have learned your lesson from this occasion and that we will not see you again before the Court. Authorities AG-v-Da Silva [1997] JLR N 14a. Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences)(Jersey) Law 2002. Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. AG v Cox [2009] JRC 224 . AG v Cox [2011] JRC 087 . AG v Cox [2013] JRC 066 . AG v Such [2012] JRC 155 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII