AG v Ford [2004] JRC 001 (02 January 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] JRC 001
- 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
The defendant's immediate breach of the court's order, disrespect for the court, and subsequent violent conduct justified a custodial sentence, taking into account mitigation, guilty pleas, and time spent on remand.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 3 months' imprisonment on each of counts 1, 2, and 3 of the current indictment, to run concurrently (total 3 months)
- 3 months' imprisonment on count 1, 9 months' imprisonment on counts 2 and 3 of the previous indictment, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the current indictment (total 12 months)
- Exclusion order from licensed premises (except those with a 6th category licence) for 12 months from today
- Discharge of the previous probation order and exclusion order imposed on 3rd October, 2003
02
Material facts
Parties
Attorney General
ProsecutorFord
Defendant Counsel: defence counselAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment (current Indictment): months 3
- Imprisonment (previous Indictment): months 12
- Exclusion Order Duration: months 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant breached the court's previous order by entering licensed premises and engaging in disorderly conduct
- 02
Appropriate sentence for breach of court order and related offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant breached the court's order by entering licensed premises, becoming intoxicated, causing a nuisance, and being violent and aggressive towards police officers.
- Respondent
- Mitigation was presented by defence counsel, including guilty pleas and time spent in custody on remand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
A. G. -v- Ford [2003]JRC171
Breach of court orders and sentencing for contempt and related offences
- 02
Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998
Exclusion from licensed premises under statutory authority
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant's immediate breach of the court's order, disrespect for the court, and subsequent violent conduct justified a custodial sentence, taking into account mitigation, guilty pleas, and time spent on remand.
Obiter and limits
- The exclusion order will have no practical effect if the defendant leaves the Island after serving the sentence.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 3 months' imprisonment on each of counts 1, 2, and 3 of the current indictment, to run concurrently (total 3 months)
- 3 months' imprisonment on count 1, 9 months' imprisonment on counts 2 and 3 of the previous indictment, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the current indictment (total 12 months)
- Exclusion order from licensed premises (except those with a 6th category licence) for 12 months from today
- Discharge of the previous probation order and exclusion order imposed on 3rd October, 2003
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 BAILIFF: 1. I am not going to repeat everything the Court said to you on 3 rd October, last year. At that time you were given a chance to make a new start. You were warned that, if you did not behave yourself and that if you did go into licensed premises, you would very likely end up in prison. You showed disrespect, indeed contempt, for the order of the Court as within hours you were drunk on licensed premises, making a nuisance of yourself and in addition you were violent and aggressive with police officers who were only doing their job.
2. We have no option now but to sentence you to imprisonment. We have taken into account all the submissions made by your counsel. You are entitled to credit for your guilty pleas. We also take into account the time spent in custody on remand, and will give some allowance for the fact that the time spent on remand before the 3 rd October, will not count against the sentence which we are about to impose.
3. We also take account of all the other mitigation available to you and outlined by your counsel. Taking all those matters into account the sentence of the Court is as follows. So far as this indictment is concerned you will be sentenced on count 1 to 3 months' imprisonment, on count 2 to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, and on count 3 to 3 months' imprisonment concurrent, making a total of 3 months' imprisonment on the current indictment. So far as the indictment for which you were sentenced on the 3 rd October, 2003, is concerned you will be sentenced on count 1 to 3 months' imprisonment, on count 2 to 9 months' imprisonment and on count 3 to 9 months' imprisonment, all those sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences on this indictment making a total of 12 months' imprisonment.
4. We also impose an exclusion order to date from today excluding you from licensed premises except those premises holding a 6 th category licence of 12 months. We appreciate, of course, that this order will have no practical effect if you do decide to leave the Island after you have served your sentence of imprisonment. While you remain in the Island, this will be in force and you must obey it, and if you do not, then obviously you will be at risk of further punishment.
5. We discharge the Probation Order and we discharge the exclusion order imposed on the 3 rd October, 2003. Authorities A. G. -v- Ford [2003]JRC171. Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) (Jersey) Law 1998. Page Last Updated: 29 Jun 2016 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.