AG v Fortun [2002] JRC 205 (25 October 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] JRC 205
- 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 seriousness of arson, use of petrol, substantial property damage, and the defendant's prior history, a custodial sentence is warranted; mitigating factors include guilty plea, cooperation, and warning given.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 6 months' imprisonment on count 1
- 3 years' imprisonment on count 2
- sentences to run concurrently
- time spent on remand to be deducted
02
Material facts
Parties
Fortun
DefendantCrown
ProsecutionAmounts and remedies
- Property Damage: GBP 20,000
- Count 1 Sentence: 6
- Count 2 Sentence: 36
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for arson
- 02
consideration of hospital order
- 03
impact of mental health and alcohol
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel argued that when Fortun avoids drink, he avoids trouble, and highlighted his cooperation, guilty plea, and possible memory loss.
- Respondent
- The Crown sought a sentence consistent with the seriousness of arson, referencing the potential lethality and significant property damage.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judicial sentencing guidelines
Arson is a serious offence with potentially lethal consequences; sentencing tariff is 3-5 years, higher for aggravated cases.
- 02
Prior judicial criticism
Hospital orders cannot be made directly by the court in this jurisdiction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the seriousness of arson, use of petrol, substantial property damage, and the defendant's prior history, a custodial sentence is warranted; mitigating factors include guilty plea, cooperation, and warning given.
Obiter and limits
- Drink is clearly one of the causes of the problem.
- We are unable to make a hospital order directly.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 6 months' imprisonment on count 1
- 3 years' imprisonment on count 2
- sentences to run concurrently
- time spent on remand to be deducted
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 commissioner: 1. Arson, or maliciously setting fire to the property of another, is a troubling and serious offence. It will usually have as its cause the troubled mind of the arsonist. It is because the offence could be potentially lethal that the suggested tariff sentence is between 3 and 5 years' imprisonment. With higher sentences appropriate for aggravated cases.
2. We have in the past criticised the fact that we are unable to make a hospital order directly. But in any event careful reading of the Probation and Psychiatric Reports leaves us in doubt that treatment in that form is possible in this case. After reading the Reports we are no further into understanding what motivates Fortun; for this is not his first case before this Court for arson.
3. The fire at Le Marquand's was in the early hours; petrol was used, and whilst fortunately no one's life was endangered, some £20,000 worth of damage was caused.
4. Drink is clearly one of the causes of the problem. When you are able to avoid drink you seem able to avoid trouble, as your counsel has so clearly stated. As I have said, setting light to a property, in town, at night, using petrol, is very serious, because one has no idea what the consequences will be.
5. In your favour, it must be said, you went to the Shelter to give them some sort of warning. You pleaded guilty, you have been co-operative and we accept that you may well have had a real memory loss. The learned Jurats are not agreed. One would follow the conclusions of the Crown, the other would move for a slightly more lenient sentence. In the circumstances, you are sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment on count 1 and to 3 years on count 2; but because of the disagreement, I shall make those sentences concurrent; and the time you have spent on remand will, of course, be deducted from the sentence. Authorities A. G. -v- Drew (1985-86) JLR N.19. A. G.- v- Coutanche (1989) JLR N.11. A. G.-v- Skinner (1995) JLR N.21. A. G.-v- Haslam (25 th May, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/122]. Page Last Updated: 20 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.