Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Lister [2015] JRC 183 (04 September 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The defendant, having breached probation and committed further offences after a clear warning, is to be sentenced to youth custody as the alternative previously indicated by the court.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 7 months' youth custody for grave and criminal assault
  • 3 days' youth custody for breach of binding-over order, concurrent
  • Exclusion Order to continue
  • 1 week's youth custody for new indictment, consecutive
  • Total: 7 months and 1 week's youth custody

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Lister

Defendant Counsel: defence counsel

Attorney General

Prosecutor Counsel: Crown

Amounts and remedies

  • Youth Custody (grave and Criminal Assault): months 7
  • Youth Custody (breach of Binding Over Order): days 3
  • Youth Custody (new Indictment): weeks 1

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Defence counsel argued for leniency, referencing previous warnings and the defendant's circumstances.
Respondent
The Crown argued that the defendant had squandered his chance and should be sentenced in accordance with the conclusions previously indicated.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG-v-Ewens Lister and Weller [2015] JRC 127

    Breach of probation and commission of further offences after a warning justifies imposition of custodial sentence.

  2. 02

    Louis-v-AG [2010] JRC 170

    Sentencing must reflect disregard for court orders and repeated offending.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The defendant, having breached probation and committed further offences after a clear warning, is to be sentenced to youth custody as the alternative previously indicated by the court.

Obiter and limits

  • The defendant's poor attitude towards probation and community service was noted.
  • The court emphasized that the defendant had been given many chances.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 7 months' youth custody for grave and criminal assault
  • 3 days' youth custody for breach of binding-over order, concurrent
  • Exclusion Order to continue
  • 1 week's youth custody for new indictment, consecutive
  • Total: 7 months and 1 week's youth custody

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

[2015] JRC 183

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. On the last occasion that you were before this Court, 11 th June this year, you escaped a sentence of youth custody by the skin of your teeth. The Court, at paragraph 15 of its judgment ( AG-v-Ewens Lister and Weller [2015] JRC 127 ) said this:- "...it is with a great deal of hesitation that the Court thinks that, marginally, you are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, as I have said, the offence that you have committed was a cowardly and serious offence. You should recognise that. You should recognise the effect that alcohol has had upon you and in the circumstances we are going to impose a sentence of 12 months' probation... if you fail to comply with the terms of the Probation Order, fail to act as the probation officer directs you, if you do not perform the community service, then the matter will be brought back to this Court and you are liable then to be sent to the youth detention order that is the alternative." Your co-accused at the time both received custodial sentences.

2. Mr Lister, this was a warning in the clearest possible terms and, notwithstanding that warning, a mere six weeks later, you committed the offence of drunk and disorderly, a particularly nasty example of this kind of offence. This demonstrates a disregard for the order of the Court and for the chance that you had been given. It chimes with the poor attitude you displayed when attending meetings with the Probation Office and your attitude to community service.

3. We have listened to all that your counsel has said on your behalf and she has said, very well all that can be said, but in the view of this Court you have squandered the chance that you were given. It is not a question of giving you a second chance, you have been given many chances, as your record discloses.

4. Accordingly, the Court sentences you in accordance with the conclusions of the Crown: for the crime of grave and criminal assault, for which you were before the Court on th June, you will serve 7 months' youth custody; for the breach of the binding-over order: 3 days' youth custody, concurrent with the 7 months; the Exclusion Order made at that time will continue and on the new Indictment to which you have pleaded guilty today, you will serve 1 week's youth custody, consecutive with the others, making a total of 7 months and 1 week's youth custody. Authorities AG-v-Ewens Lister and Weller [2015] JRC 127 . Louis-v-AG [2010] JRC 170 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 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-Ewens Lister and Weller [2015] JRC 127

Case cited

Louis-v-AG [2010] JRC 170

Case cited

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.