AG v Lopes [2001] JRC 63 (16 March 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 63
- 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 defendant's failure to respond to non-custodial sentences and repeated offending, a custodial sentence is necessary despite her young age.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 15 months' Youth Detention as total sentence
- Probation Orders discharged
- Possible supervision upon release
02
Material facts
Parties
Miss Lopes
Defendant Counsel: Mr LivingstoneThe Crown
ProsecutionAmounts and remedies
- Total Youth Detention Sentence: months 15
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether custodial sentence is appropriate for a young offender who breached probation and committed further offences
- 02
Appropriate sentence for possession of class A drugs and other offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Mitigation advanced on behalf of the defendant, including age and previous probation.
- Respondent
- Crown submits custodial sentence is necessary due to repeated offending and failure to respond to non-custodial measures.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994, Article 4
Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 applies to offenders under 21.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Given the defendant's failure to respond to non-custodial sentences and repeated offending, a custodial sentence is necessary despite her young age.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 15 months' Youth Detention as total sentence
- Probation Orders discharged
- Possible supervision upon release
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 DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Miss Lopes, on the 22nd September of last year you were given a chance by this Court when you were placed on probation, and the Court said at the time that if you were not of good behaviour you would be brought back and you would probably end up being sent to prison. Well, you have not taken advantage of that opportunity and you are now back before the Court for further offences.
2. We have listened very carefully to what Mr Livingstone has had to say on your behalf and we have read the reports. We have also taken into account that you are still only 18 and that therefore Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 applies to you, but we are satisfied that in view of your failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, there is no alternative but to a custodial sentence on this occasion.
3. We think the Crown have taken full account of all the mitigation available to you, and therefore we are going to grant their conclusions. On Count 2, however, we think that for a second offence of possession of drugs, and possession of class A drugs on this occasion, the correct sentence would be 3 months' Youth Detention.
4. With regard to the breach of the Royal Court's Probation Order of 22nd September, 2000, on the first indictment: 15 months' Youth Detention on all counts. On the second indictment: 15 months' Youth Detention concurrent on all the counts of obtaining by false pretences, and 9 months' Youth Detention concurrent on the count of larceny.
5. For the offences for which you were placed on probation by the Magistrate on 13th October, 2000: 2 weeks' Youth Detention concurrent on each count.
6. Therefore the total sentence imposed will be 15 months' Youth Detention as moved for by the Crown, and we must tell you that you may be subject to supervision when you are released. We discharge the Probation Orders. No Authorities. Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 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.