AG v de Sousa [2001] JRC 91 (27 April 2001)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. This is yet another case of crime carried out to get money to feed heroin addiction. De Sousa, you repeatedly offended whilst on bail. You have previously been given non-custodial sentences but these appear to have had no effect. You are only 18 but your failure to respond to these non-custodial sentences and the seriousness of these offences in the aggregate have satisfied us that there is no alternative to a custodial sentence in this case. A non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.

2. We have taken into account the mitigation put forward by your counsel, in particular your guilty plea; your remorse, and we have read the letter which you have written to us as well as the reference supplied. We have also taken into account that this is your first experience of youth detention and in the circumstances we think we can reduce the conclusions slightly.

3. The sentence of the Court is as follows: on count 1: you are fined £100 or 7 days' youth detention in default; count 2: £300 or 7 days' youth detention in default, concurrent; count 3: £300 or 7 days' youth detention in default, concurrent; 12 months' disqualification from driving; count 4: 2 months' youth detention; count 5: 12 months' youth detention, consecutive; count 6: 2 months' youth detention, consecutive to count 5; count 7: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent; count 8: £300 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default, concurrent; count 9: 2 months' youth detention, consecutive; 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent; count 10: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent; 12 months' disqualification from driving, concurrent; count 11: 2 months' youth detention, concurrent, making a total of 18 months' youth detention; £1,000 fine or 7 days' youth detention in default; 12 months' disqualification from driving.

4. De Sousa, I must warn you that, following your release from youth detention, you may be subject to supervision by the probation service.

5. Finally, Miss Fitz , we would refer to the fact that, in relation to the first group of offences, the defendant was charged on 30th April and as he is a young offender one would have thought that the matter would have been dealt with quickly, but it appears not to have been presented until 5th July. That seems to us too long a delay. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII