AG v Fairbrace [2022] JRC 039 (11 February 2022)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Kai Fairbrace you are 18 years old, your 19 th birthday is next month. We note from your antecedents that notwithstanding your youth you have amassed a significant criminal record including convictions for violence, causing damage, and threatening behaviour. Further, you appeared before the Magistrate's Court on 10 th November 2020, and were sentenced to 9 months' Probation in respect of offences including drug offences and grave and criminal assault in respect of which you were sentenced to 90 hours' Community Service. Since then you have committed further offences and breached the Community Service Order imposed upon you to which we have referred.

2. In relation to the breach of those orders and other offences on the 5 th November 2021, you were sentenced to another Probation Order by the Magistrate's Court which you in effect breached by committing these offences only a month later on the 4 th December 2021 when you assaulted a doorman by punching him in the face in the vicinity of a nightclub, having behaved aggressively towards members of the public.

3. Owing to your conduct you were arrested and when you were searched 5 grams of MDMA was found upon you, separated into five individual wraps all collectively wrapped in clingfilm. Examination of your mobile telephone showed that shortly before you were arrested you sent a message to unknown person saying you could supply " two MDs " which is accepted is 2 grams for ecstasy or £160.

4. In interview you admitted the assault and accepted you had the MDMA on you, although you claimed at that stage you intended to supply 1 gram only to a friend for £45 and the remainder would be your personal consumption. The street value of the drugs you had upon you was between £400 and £500.

5. We accept the basis of your plea as set out in writing and referred to by your counsel in the course of submissions today, namely to the effect that you were going to sell 1 gram of the ecstasy at cost, 2 grams at a profit and retain the remaining 2 grams for yourself. On any view this was a case of supply of a Class A drug for money, namely supply on a commercial basis.

6. You pleaded guilty before the Magistrate's Court on 13 th December 2021, and accordingly you are entitled to full credit for your guilty plea. The guidelines in Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 guidelines suggest a starting point of 7 years for the offence of supply of ecstasy which we accept as appropriate and has not been challenged on your behalf.

7. The Pre-Sentence Report in your case makes difficult reading. You have had a difficult start in life, and we have read all that you have said, and your mother has said on your behalf in her letter. You are at very high risk of reconviction. You told the author of the report that you cannot be bothered to seek gainful employment and the Probation Service has little confidence that you will complete a Probation Order. During the currency of the existing order, five sessions were organised with the substance misuse officer none of which you attended - although you have recently seen her once just before this hearing. Of the twelve probation sessions you attended six. Owing to your past poor engagements the Probation Officer says that he has little confidence that you would be able to complete the work plan that is proposed, and your attendance on the Probation Order has been described as " inconsistent" with your participation " superficial" .

8. In respect to Community Service, we accept the Crown's description of your compliance being littered with " unreasonable behaviour and non-attendance". Your supervising officer described this as being " a very difficult order, frustrated by endless medical certificates invariably presented outside service standards " with indifferent reports about your behaviour, when out of the sight of your supervising officer, including allegations of attempting to break tools, and you lacking any self-motivation. The conclusion is that until such time as you are prepared to help yourself the officer said he could not see any intervention making a difference.

9. You only completed the order owing to the generosity of the supervising officer and in your letter to the Court to us, you accept that you have simply " blown the chances " that you have been given. You say you wish to turn over a new leaf; that want to make your family proud and certainly we hope that ultimately it is something that you do.

10. We have had regard to the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014. Pursuant to Article 4(2) we are unable to pass a sentence of youth detention unless the court considers that no other method of dealing with you is appropriate because, amongst other things, you have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and are unable or unwilling to respond to them. The members of the Court have regretfully, but nonetheless clearly, come to the conclusion that you do have a history of failure to respond non-custodial penalties and you are unwilling to respond to them. Accordingly the Court is imposing a sentence of youth detention on you today, which will be reduced from the sentence sought by the Crown owing to your age. We hope that whilst in youth custody you will take the opportunities in terms of courses, and other assistance that will undoubtably be offered to you and we hope that when you are released on licence - you will be supervised by the Probation Service for 6 months - that you will accept their support and turn over a new leaf in the way that you have said that you will.

11. On Count 1, we impose a sentence of 3 months' youth detention. On Count 2, 18 months' concurrent. We revoke the Probation Order and impose a sentence of 3 months' youth detention for breach of the peace and 3 months' concurrent for resisting arrest making a total of 18 months' youth detention.

12. We order forfeiture of the drugs and their destruction. Authorities Rimmer v AG [2001] JLR 373 . Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 2014. Loi (1937) sur l'attenuation des peines et sur la mise en liberte surveillee AG v Buckley [2008] JRC 144 AG v Mackenzie and Richards [2011] JRC 173A AG v Cauvain [2021] JRC 306 AG v Buckley [2021] JRC 222 AG v Burnside [2021] JRC 085 Page Last Updated: 24 Feb 2022 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII