AG -v- Hughes [2005] JRC 118 (19 August 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] JRC 118
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Given the seriousness of night-time burglary, prior conviction, and limited mitigation, a custodial sentence is required despite the defendant's intoxication and efforts at rehabilitation.
Court disposition
Custodial sentence imposed
Orders
- 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1 (burglary)
- 2 weeks' imprisonment concurrent on Count 2 (possession of cannabis)
02
Material facts
Parties
The Defendant
Defendant Counsel: Counsel for the defendantAttorney General
ProsecutorAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment on Count 1: years 2
- Imprisonment on Count 2: weeks 2
- Previous Imprisonment (1997): months 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for night-time burglary and possession of cannabis
- 02
Weight to be given to intoxication and mitigation in sentencing
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant, through counsel, argued for a non-custodial sentence based on intoxication and lack of awareness during the offence, supported by the Probation Officer's report.
- Respondent
- The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of night-time burglary, the impact on victims, and the defendant's prior conviction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
A. G. -v- Da Silva (1997) JRC218
Night-time burglary of a dwelling is a serious offence due to the invasion of privacy and resulting insecurity for victims.
- 02
Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Ed'n): para 372
Mitigation such as guilty plea, remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation may reduce sentence but do not preclude custody for serious offences.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the seriousness of night-time burglary, prior conviction, and limited mitigation, a custodial sentence is required despite the defendant's intoxication and efforts at rehabilitation.
Obiter and limits
- Most of the property was recovered and cash repaid.
- The offence was opportunistic and not premeditated.
Court disposition
Custodial sentence imposed
- 2 years' imprisonment on Count 1 (burglary)
- 2 weeks' imprisonment concurrent on Count 2 (possession of cannabis)
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. This defendant has pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a private dwelling house during the night, and to stealing a number of items of property and to possession of a small quantity of cannabis. He was under the influence of drugs and alcohol when the offence of burglary took place. He has a previous conviction for burglary in 1997 when he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
2. Counsel for the defendant has urged upon us the submission that a non-custodial sentence should be imposed, supported by the report of the Probation Officer, principally because the defendant acted whilst he was in such a state of intoxication that he apparently did not know what he was doing.
3. We cannot accept that submission. Violating the privacy of the home of a member of the public by night is a very serious offence, not just because of the loss of property and personal possessions, but also because of the sense of invasion and insecurity which almost invariably follows such offences and did follow so far as this particular household is concerned.
4. In mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty to the indictment, has expressed some remorse and has been making efforts to seek help from the Drug and Alcohol Service. He is entitled to credit for that. We accept that this was an opportunistic offence in that there was no premeditation. Most of the property has been recovered and the defendant has repaid cash which was stolen. Taking all those factors into account and giving as much weight as we can to the mitigation available the sentence of the Court is that you will go to prison for 2 years on Count 1, and 2 weeks, concurrent on Count 2, making a total of 2 years' imprisonment. Authorities A. G. -v- Da S ilva (1997)JRC218. Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): para 372. R -v- Perks [2002] All ER (D) 763. A. G. -v- Miller, Corvel , Louis, Manning (1999) JRC186. Page Last Updated: 14 Jul 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.