Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Lee [2011] JRC 092 (27 April 2011)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Despite mitigation and evidence of rehabilitation, the seriousness and potential consequences of arson require a substantial custodial sentence, with concurrent terms to reflect totality and credit for recent progress.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 2 years' imprisonment (arson)
  • 12 months' imprisonment (breaking and entering)
  • 3 months' imprisonment and 2 years' disqualification (motoring offence)
  • 3 months' imprisonment (motoring offence)
  • all sentences concurrent
  • no separate penalty on Count 1

02

Material facts

Parties

(Defendant name not specified)

Defendant Counsel: Miss Fogarty

Crown

Prosecution

Amounts and remedies

  • Total Damage: GBP 8,700
  • Imprisonment (total): years 2
  • Driving Disqualification: years 2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Miss Fogarty argued in mitigation, emphasizing the defendant's guilty plea, five years without offending, abstinence from alcohol, remorse, support from partner, and positive reports recommending a Treatment Order.
Respondent
The Crown maintained that arson is a serious offence warranting a substantial prison sentence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG-v-Fortun 2002/205; AG-v-Coutanche [1989] JLR N 11b; AG-v-Dewhurst [2007] JRC 098; AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101; AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19; AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077

    Arson is regarded very seriously by the courts and will almost invariably attract a substantial prison sentence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Despite mitigation and evidence of rehabilitation, the seriousness and potential consequences of arson require a substantial custodial sentence, with concurrent terms to reflect totality and credit for recent progress.

Obiter and limits

  • The court commended the witnesses for their prompt action in calling Emergency Services, which prevented further damage.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 2 years' imprisonment (arson)
  • 12 months' imprisonment (breaking and entering)
  • 3 months' imprisonment and 2 years' disqualification (motoring offence)
  • 3 months' imprisonment (motoring offence)
  • all sentences concurrent
  • no separate penalty on Count 1

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2011] JRC 092

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You are before the Court for maliciously setting fire to a car, breaking and entering and larceny and three motoring offences. The arson and the breaking and entering are obviously the most serious offences. After an argument with your family you went to Green Island; there you consumed some eight or nine cans of lager, and whilst you were intoxicated, you broke and entered the Green Island Kiosk and stole a few items and then, for reasons which are not clear, you set fire to a Jeep. You then left the scene whereupon the fire spread to two adjacent cars. It was only due to the prompt action of two witnesses, whom we would like to commend, that more damage was not done, because they called the Emergency Services, who attended and managed to put out the fire. But there is still total damage of £8,700 or so.

2. Arson is always a serious offence because it can so easily get out of control and that is just what happened here. It was very fortunate that no petrol tank exploded. If the witnesses had not responded promptly, as they did, and called the Emergency Services, who knows whether that would not have happened. It is clear that drink is your problem; if you drink you tend to offend.

3. Miss Fogarty has spoken strongly in mitigation; she has referred to your guilty plea, although you were not co-operative to start with, but you did then plead guilty. She has emphasised in particular that, although you have got previous convictions for dishonesty and indeed, two for driving without insurance, you do seem to have turned your life around for the last five years or so in that you have not offended during that time, and this has coincided with your being abstinent from alcohol. She has referred to your remorse and your determination to try and avoid relapsing into offending and drinking and that is borne out by the reports; she has also referred to the support of your partner with whom you are now living, and we have read carefully the letters which have been produced to us. She has also referred to the various reports; background report, drug and alcohol report and the psychiatric report, all of which recommend that we proceed by way of a Treatment Order.

4. But the difficulty is that an offence of arson is simply too serious. The potential consequences mean that arson is regarded very seriously by the courts and will almost invariably therefore attract a substantial prison sentence.

5. We have to say that the Crown's conclusions are absolutely correct but we do want to reflect the progress you have made over the last five years, because we are impressed with the efforts you have made and we hope very much that, when you come out of prison, you will continue the good efforts you have made and will not re-appear before us again. We are going to reduce the conclusions a little in order to give credit for what you have achieved in the last five years, but we regret we cannot avoid a prison sentence.

6. We are going to make all the sentences concurrent, although normally an offence for driving without insurance will always be consecutive. We think that in order to come to the right total sentence, we are going to make them concurrent. So the sentence is as follows: on Count 1; no separate penalty, on Count 2; 2 years' imprisonment, on Count 3; 12 months' imprisonment, on Count 4; 3 months' imprisonment and 2 years' disqualification, on Count 5; 3 months' imprisonment, but all of those to be concurrent, so that makes a total of 2 years' imprisonment with disqualification from driving for 2 years.

7. Just before we conclude this case we would like to pay tribute to Mr Molyneaux and to Miss Le Noa who were the witnesses, and who saw what had happened and took the very responsible action of telephoning the Emergency Services, and they thereby saved possibly much worse damage. Thank you very much. Authorities Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. Criminal Justice (Standard Scale of Fines)(Jersey) Law 1993. Fire Service (Jersey) Law 1959. Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948. AG-v-Fortun 2002/205. AG-v-Coutanche [1989] JLR N 11b. AG-v-Dewhurst [2007] JRC 098 . AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101. AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19. AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077 . Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG-v-Fortun 2002/205

Case cited

AG-v-Coutanche [1989] JLR N 11b

Case cited

AG-v-Dewhurst [2007] JRC 098

Case cited

AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101

Case cited

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JLR N 19

Case cited

AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077

Case cited

Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Justice (Standard Scale of Fines)(Jersey) Law 1993

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Fire Service (Jersey) Law 1959

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance)(Jersey) Law 1948

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.