AG -v- Lynn [2014] JRC 029 (31 January 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] JRC 029
- 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
The offences were carefully planned, targeted for financial gain, and intended to frustrate a court order, with substantial value involved. Aggravating factors outweighed mitigation, justifying a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for Count 1 and 18 months for Count 2, to run concurrently.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- On Count 1, 3 years' imprisonment; on Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent; total 3 years' imprisonment.
02
Material facts
Parties
The Crown
ProsecutionDefendant
Defendant Counsel: Advocate FogartyAmounts and remedies
- Value of Items Stolen: GBP 72,062.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriate sentence for breaking and entry and larceny involving substantial value and aggravating factors
- 02
Consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown argued the offences were carefully planned, targeted for financial gain, intended to frustrate a court order, and involved substantial value. The Crown relied on precedent cases and sought a sentence of 3 years for Count 1 and 18 months for Count 2, concurrent.
- Respondent
- The defendant pleaded guilty, was to an extent cooperative with police, and most goods were recovered. Advocate Fogarty presented mitigation, but the court found little credit due as recovery was due to police action.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101; AG-v-Chabros [2012] JRC 087; AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218; R-v-Cole [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 1993; Sentencing Council Burglary Offences Definitive Guideline
Carefully planned and targeted offences for financial gain, especially those intended to frustrate court orders, are aggravating factors warranting higher sentences.
- 02
Judgment reasoning
Mitigation for guilty plea and cooperation is limited when recovery of goods is due to police action, not defendant's voluntary return.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The offences were carefully planned, targeted for financial gain, and intended to frustrate a court order, with substantial value involved. Aggravating factors outweighed mitigation, justifying a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment for Count 1 and 18 months for Count 2, to run concurrently.
Obiter and limits
- Burglaries vary in gravity; carefully planned and targeted offences are in a different league from opportunistic ones.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- On Count 1, 3 years' imprisonment; on Count 2, 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent; total 3 years' imprisonment.
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. The defendant stands to be sentenced for one count of breaking and entry and larceny and one count of illegal entry and larceny. Following a saisie judiciaire granted by the Court in respect of Liam Norris in relation to drugs offences, the Viscount took possession of property of his situated in his work premises referred to as "the Hanger". The building was secured by the Viscount with two new padlocks and regularly inspected by the Viscount's Department.
2. Having rented part of a lock-up garage using a false name, the defendant, who knows Mr Norris, travelled in a van to "the Hanger" at night with bolt cutters which he used to remove the padlocks and replaced them with new padlocks of his own. That day and a week later the defendant removed nine motorcycles and other equipment which he stored in the lock-up garage and elsewhere. The items removed have been independently valued at £72,062.50.
3. The defendant has failed to attend interviews with the Probation Department. He is aged 56 and, apart from a sister in the Island, has no other family or dependants. He has a record of serious drug-related offences.
4. The Crown relies on the case of AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101 which suggests a focal point of 18 months for an offence of breaking and entry on commercial premises at night, on a guilty plea. That case involved goods to the value of £2,027.94. The Crown also referred us to the case of AG-v-Chabros [2012] JRC 087 where a 32 year old defendant was convicted of two counts of breaking and entry and larceny together with one count of attempted breaking and entry with larceny of commercial premises. He stole almost £19,000 in cash and attempted to steal a further £24,000. The case was described as an "inside job" as the defendant knew where to find the key to the safe. The offences were carefully planned and no forensic evidence was available. The money stolen was not recovered. Chabros was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment. The tariff imposed would appear to us to be low when considering the suggested focal point in Gaffney on a guilty plea. The Crown also referred us to the case of AG-v- Da Silva 1997/218. Although this case concerns breaking into private dwellings the judgment looks at the issues regarding how to ascertain the seriousness of the offence and those features which will aggravate the offence. It also emphasises the difficulty laying down specific guidelines. The Court referred to Whelan's Aspects on Sentencing where the author has made reference to the
observations of Lord Taylor in the case of R-v-Cole [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 1993:- "Burglaries vary in their gravity. It is one thing for one or two people who have had too much to drink on their way home to think of breaking into a shop. This is serious enough and may well involve a prison sentence. But where (as in this instant case) one has a carefully planned and targeted offence. It is in a different league." 5. The Crown submits that there are aggravating factors here. These offences were carefully planned and targeted for financial gain and deliberately intended to frustrate an Order of the Court. Furthermore, the value of the items stolen was substantial.
6. The Crown has therefore moved for a sentence of 3 years on Count 1 and 18 months on Count 2, concurrent.
7. In terms of mitigation the defendant has pleaded guilty. To an extent he has been cooperative with the police. It is true that the majority of the goods have been recovered, but in our view the defendant gets little credit for this as that was only through the action of the police. We have taken into account all of the mitigation put forward by Advocate Fogarty but we agree with the conclusions of the Crown.
8. On Count 1 you are sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, on Count 2; 18 months' imprisonment, concurrent. That is a total of 3 years' imprisonment. Authorities AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101. AG-v-Chabros [2012] JRC 087 . AG-v- Da Silva 1997/218. Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey Third Edition. R-v-Cole [1996] 1 Cr App R (S) 1993. Sentencing Council Burglary Offences Definitive Guideline. Page Last Updated: 23 Sep 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.