AG v CTK [2004] JRC 015 (23 January 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] JRC 015
- 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
Given the defendant's repeated offending, failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, and the seriousness of the offences, Youth Detention for twelve months is the only appropriate sentence. Disqualification from driving for two years is justified but should not extend unduly beyond the period of detention.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- Twelve months' Youth Detention (various counts, some concurrent, some consecutive)
- Two years' disqualification from driving on relevant counts
- All Probation Orders discharged
02
Material facts
Parties
A. G.
ProsecutionCTK
Defendant Counsel: Mr PikeAmounts and remedies
- Total Youth Detention Sentence: months 12
- Driving Disqualification Period: years 2
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Youth Detention is appropriate given repeated offending and failure to respond to non-custodial sentences
- 02
Appropriate length of Youth Detention
- 03
Appropriate period of driving disqualification
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown moved for a twelve-month Youth Detention sentence and disqualification from driving, citing repeated offending and failure to respond to previous non-custodial measures.
- Respondent
- The defendant's advocate urged for a sentence of less than twelve months and a shorter period of disqualification, emphasizing the defendant's youth and potential for rehabilitation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994
Youth Detention should only be imposed in certain circumstances, particularly where non-custodial sentences have failed.
- 02
Current Sentencing Practice and Magistrate's Court Guidelines
Sentencing should reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for public protection.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the defendant's repeated offending, failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, and the seriousness of the offences, Youth Detention for twelve months is the only appropriate sentence. Disqualification from driving for two years is justified but should not extend unduly beyond the period of detention.
Obiter and limits
- The court hopes the defendant's education and music can continue during detention.
- The court encourages participation in offending behaviour and substance misuse programmes.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- Twelve months' Youth Detention (various counts, some concurrent, some consecutive)
- Two years' disqualification from driving on relevant counts
- All Probation Orders discharged
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 DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Now CTK, on 5 th November we gave you a chance by placing you on probation despite your previous record but you spurned that chance by re-offending very shortly afterwards. You then escaped a couple of times from Greenfields. We gave you another chance when you asked for it by granting you bail over Christmas but you spurned that chance by failing to return to Greenfields and committing further offences at the end of December. This included, yet again, taking your mother's car and more motoring offences including driving dangerously at speeds of up to 80 miles an hour whilst being chased by a police car before crashing. It was lucky that you and your passengers were not seriously injured. We have put off sentencing you, as you know, in the hope that it might have been possible for you to go to a residential hostel in England but following their visit to Jersey that is not possible. That then leaves us really with no alternative but Youth Detention. Article 4 of the 1994 Law, says that we should only sentence you to Youth Detention in certain circumstances but we are quite satisfied in this case that there has been a history of failure on your part to respond to non-custodial sentences and you appear unable or unwilling to respond to them. So there is no alternative to Youth Detention and all that remains is to decide how long it should be.
2. Your Advocate has urged that it should be less than twelve months. We have given careful consideration to that but we think that the offences you have committed require the sentence which has been moved by the Crown. We think, additionally that this may give you, over a period of some eight months, a period of stability and time for reflection.
3. In the circumstances we are going to grant the conclusions although we are going to vary the make up slightly. Count 1, six months'; count 2, six months' Binding-Over Order; count 3, six months'; count 4, three months'; count 5, three months'. On the second indictment, count 1, six months'; count 2, six months'; count 3, six months' Binding-Over Order; count 4, six months'; count 5, six months' Binding-Over Order; count 6, six months'; count 7, three months' and count 8, three months' Youth Detention. All of those sentences are to be concurrent save for those passed on count 5 of the first indictment and count 1 of the second indictment; they are to be concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other sentences which makes the twelve months' in all.
4. As to disqualification, we have listened to what your Advocate has said and we agree that we would not like to disqualify you for too long after you become free to drive. We are giving you a chance in that respect. We hope that, by then, you will have seen the error of your ways; so we are going to disqualify you for two years on all the counts where the Crown has moved for disqualification. Finally, we would like to say this: we very much hope, as we have been told by Mr Pike, that your education can continue at La Moye. We understand Greenfields will make great efforts for your education to continue and we earnestly support that. Secondly, we hope that it will be possible for you to continue with your music whilst in Youth Detention, if that is something that you wish to do; and thirdly, we hope that in Youth Detention an offending behaviour programme and substance misuse programme can be made available. So we hope that when you emerge you will have derived some benefit from the time that you will have spent in prison. All the Probation Orders are discharged. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 Current Sentencing Practice: - Part B8 - 5: Escape from Lawful Custody Part B8 - 53 AD4: R -v- Sutcliffe (1992) 13 Cr. App R. (S) 538 Part B8 - 53 A06: R. -v- Wilson (1992) 14 Cr. App. R. (S) 314 Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956 Motor Traffic (3 rd Party Insurance (Jersey) Law 1948 Magistrate's Court Guidelines (September 1999) A. G. -v- CTK & Ors [2003] JRC199 Page Last Updated: 24 Mar 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.