AG v Matson [2001] JRC 143 (06 July 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 143
- 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
Custodial sentences are justified due to the defendant's repeated failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and the seriousness of the offences, making non-custodial penalties inappropriate.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
Orders
- 18 months' youth detention on count 1
- 3 months' youth detention on count 2
- 12 months' youth detention on count 3
- 9 months' youth detention on count 4
- 12 months' youth detention on count 5
- 1 month's youth detention on count 6
- 12 months' youth detention on count 7
- all sentences to be served concurrently
- binding over order discharged
- no compensation order made
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
Matson
DefendantCrown Advocate
Prosecution Counsel: Crown AdvocateAmounts and remedies
- Youth Detention (count 1): months 18
- Youth Detention (count 2): months 3
- Youth Detention (count 3): months 12
- Youth Detention (count 4): months 9
- Youth Detention (count 5): months 12
- Youth Detention (count 6): months 1
- Youth Detention (count 7): months 12
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a custodial sentence is justified for a young offender who breached probation and committed multiple serious offences
- 02
Whether mitigating factors warrant a non-custodial penalty
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Mitigating factors and guilty pleas should be considered in sentencing.
- Respondent
- The defendant has a history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties and the seriousness of the offences justifies custody.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994
A custodial sentence may be imposed when non-custodial penalties have failed and the totality of offending is serious.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Custodial sentences are justified due to the defendant's repeated failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and the seriousness of the offences, making non-custodial penalties inappropriate.
Obiter and limits
- The court took into account guilty pleas and other mitigating factors, but found these were already reflected in the sentencing conclusions.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced
- 18 months' youth detention on count 1
- 3 months' youth detention on count 2
- 12 months' youth detention on count 3
- 9 months' youth detention on count 4
- 12 months' youth detention on count 5
- 1 month's youth detention on count 6
- 12 months' youth detention on count 7
- all sentences to be served concurrently
- binding over order discharged
- no compensation order made
- forfeiture and destruction of drugs ordered
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. Matson, stand up, please. You have pleaded guilty to offences, a number of which are serious. They were all committed whilst you were subject to a probation order imposed by this Court some six months ago when you were given an opportunity to make something of your life. You have squandered that opportunity and a custodial penalty is inevitable.
2. The Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law, 1994 requires me to explain why the Court is going to impose a custodial sentence. The reasons are that you have a history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties and that the totality of the offending is so serious that a non-custodial penalty cannot be justified. I also have to explain to you that on your release you will be liable to be supervised by a probation officer or some other official.
3. We have taken into account in your favour your guilty pleas and the other mitigating factors mentioned by the Crown Advocate, but we think that all those have been taken into account in the conclusions. The conclusions are granted and, on count 1, you are sentenced to 18 months' youth detention; on count 2, to 3 months' youth detention; on count 3, to 12 months' youth detention; on count 4, to 9 months' youth detention; on count 5, to 12 months' youth detention; on count 6, to 1 month's youth detention; on count 7, to 12 months' youth detention, all those sentences to be served concurrently. We discharge the binding over order. We decline to make a compensation order and we order, in case it is necessary, the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities. Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994 AG-v-Rios & Others (11 th October 1996) Jersey Unreported AG-v-Pinto & Others (6 th September 1996) Jersey Unreported AG-v-McDonough Another (25 th October 1991) Jersey Unreported AG-v-Dowden & Jersey Others (6 th August 1992) Jersey Unreported AG-v- Bendell (19 th March 1999) Jersey Unreported [1999/154] AG-v-McCormick (16 th March 2001) Jersey Unreported [2001/64] AG-v- Wakeling & Another (23 rd April 1990) Jersey Unreported AG-v- Gaffeny (5 th June 1995) Jersey Unreported Page Last Updated: 20 Jun 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.