Jersey Judgment

AG v De Gouveia [2007] JRC 077 (30 March 2007)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given repeated offending after prior warning and breach of community service, a custodial sentence is necessary; deportation not recommended due to insufficient seriousness and family ties.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced to imprisonment

Orders

  • 2 months imprisonment for current offences (Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) concurrent
  • 2 months imprisonment for breach offences concurrent, consecutive to current offences
  • total 4 months imprisonment
  • 2 months disqualification from driving on Count 5
  • no recommendation for deportation

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr De Gouveia

Defendant Counsel: Mr Tremoceiro

Amounts and remedies

  • Community Service Hours Sentenced: 240
  • Community Service Hours Completed: 196
  • Total Imprisonment Months: 4
  • Driving Disqualification Months: 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mr Tremoceiro argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing guilty plea, remorse, efforts to turn life around, remain drug free, and support family through employment.
Respondent
The Crown suggested a higher sentence for breach offences and highlighted repeated offending.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's prior warning and sentencing practice

    Custodial sentence is appropriate for repeated offending after prior warning and breach of community service.

  2. 02

    Court's discretion

    Disqualification for driving without insurance may be reduced in exceptional circumstances.

  3. 03

    Court's discretion

    Deportation recommendation depends on seriousness of offence and family ties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given repeated offending after prior warning and breach of community service, a custodial sentence is necessary; deportation not recommended due to insufficient seriousness and family ties.

Obiter and limits

  • Likelihood of deportation increases with further offending.
  • Exceptional circumstances may mitigate disqualification period.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced to imprisonment

  • 2 months imprisonment for current offences (Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) concurrent
  • 2 months imprisonment for breach offences concurrent, consecutive to current offences
  • total 4 months imprisonment
  • 2 months disqualification from driving on Count 5
  • no recommendation for deportation

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

[2007] JRC 077

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Mr De Gouveia in October 2005 you were sentenced to 240 hours Community Service by this Court for an offence of importation of heroin and a number of counts of obtaining goods by false pretences. You had only completed 196 of the hours by the end of October 2006 when you were suspended because of these offences.

2. You are now before us for three offences of stealing petrol from a garage, by making off without paying, as well as an offence of driving whilst uninsured. We do however accept that this related to driving for a very short distance, from just short of the garage onto the forecourt itself.

3. You have a poor record. Despite this Mr Tremoceiro has argued that we should impose a non-custodial sentence. He refers to your guilty plea, to your remorse, to the efforts you have made to turn your life round, to your efforts to remain drug free and your efforts to support your partner and child by your employment. We commend you for these and we accept that the offending is not of a particularly serious type, and in other circumstances would have been dealt with at the Magistrate's Court.

4. But you were warned last time that you were being given a chance and you were told that if you re-offended you were likely to go to prison. I am afraid that the Court sees no alternative but to impose a prison sentence given that you have not taken advantage of the opportunity offered.

5. We are going to impose a prison sentence and we think that the offences for the breach must be consecutive to the current offences. However we think that they do not merit quite as much as the Crown had suggested, so we are just going to adjust things. On Counts 1, 3 and 4 we sentence you to 2 months concurrent on each Count, on Count 5; 2 months concurrent, and on Count 6; 1 month concurrent. So that is 2 months in all for the offences before us here. In relation to the breach offences we impose a sentence of 2 months concurrent on all of them, but they are to be consecutive to the current offences, so that makes a total of 4 months' imprisonment.

6. As to disqualification on Count 5, normally there would be a substantial period of disqualification because driving without insurance is serious. However we accept that this was a fairly exceptional case so we are going to disqualify you for only 2 months; that means you will be able to obtain your provisional licence when you come out, so you will be able to be employed and to get about.

7. We come then to deportation. Again you were warned of the possible consequences, but we accept that these offences were not sufficiently serious so that when balanced with your family here and your comparative lack of contact with your family in Madeira we do not think it right to make a recommendation on this occasion. But you must realise that each time you re-offend the likelihood of your being recommended for deportation grows, and if you commit an offence of any real seriousness in the future you are likely to be deported, you must accept that. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 10 Jun 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.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.