AG v Munks [2001] JRC 111 (18 May 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] JRC 111
- 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 court reduced the sentences based on the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, mitigating circumstances regarding the assault, and the application of the totality principle due to the defendant's lack of prior long prison sentences.
Court disposition
sentences reduced and imposed as specified
Orders
- 3 months' Youth Detention on count 1 of the indictment
- 12 months' Youth Detention on count 2 (grave and criminal assault), consecutive to count 1
- For 9 probation breach charges: 2 months' Youth Detention on charges 1 and 2, 3 months' Youth Detention on charges 3-9, all concurrent with each other but consecutive to indictment sentences
- Total of 18 months' Youth Detention
- Disqualification from holding a driving licence for 18 months
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- Probation order discharged
02
Material facts
Parties
Crown Advocate
ProsecutorDefendant
Accused Counsel: Counsel for DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Total Youth Detention: 18
- Driving Disqualification (months): 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
appropriate sentence for admitted offences
- 02
consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing
- 03
application of totality principle in sentencing
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown Advocate moved for sentences deemed right and proper for the offences admitted by the defendant.
- Respondent
- Defendant's counsel highlighted the defendant's feelings of guilt towards O'Reilly, the decision not to press charges, and the lack of prior long prison sentences as mitigating factors.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
court reasoning
Totality principle in sentencing
- 02
court reasoning
Credit for not pressing charges and feelings of guilt as mitigation
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court reduced the sentences based on the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, mitigating circumstances regarding the assault, and the application of the totality principle due to the defendant's lack of prior long prison sentences.
Obiter and limits
- Hope expressed that the defendant will respond positively to the mercy shown and take advantage of rehabilitation opportunities.
Court disposition
sentences reduced and imposed as specified
- 3 months' Youth Detention on count 1 of the indictment
- 12 months' Youth Detention on count 2 (grave and criminal assault), consecutive to count 1
- For 9 probation breach charges: 2 months' Youth Detention on charges 1 and 2, 3 months' Youth Detention on charges 3-9, all concurrent with each other but consecutive to indictment sentences
- Total of 18 months' Youth Detention
- Disqualification from holding a driving licence for 18 months
- Forfeiture and destruction of drugs
- Probation order discharged
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. The sentences for which the Crown Advocate has moved are right and proper sentences for the offences which you have admitted. We are, however, going to reduce the conclusions for three reasons. First, we have read from the reports that you are a bright lad, that you have something to offer the community, and we hope that you will respond to the mercy which the Court is going to show in a rather more positive way than you did when you were placed on probation by the Magistrate's Court in February of this year. Secondly, we take account of what your Counsel has told us in relation to the grave and criminal assault and in particular to your feelings of guilt towards O'Reilly and your decision not to press charges against him. You are entitled to credit for that. Thirdly, we take account of the fact that you have not served a long prison sentence before, although you have a bad record and we are, therefore, going to place more reliance on the totality factor than did the Crown Advocate.
2. The result of all that is that you will be sentenced on count 1 on the indictment to 3 months' Youth Detention and on count 2 of the indictment, for the grave and criminal assault, to twelve months' Youth Detention consecutive and on the 9 charges for which you are in breach of probation, you will be sentenced on charge 1 to 2 months' Youth Detention, on charge 2 to 2 months', on charges 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to 3 months' Youth Detention. All those sentences to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the first indictment, making a total of 18 months' Youth Detention. We also order that you be disqualified from holding a driving licence for 18 months on those charges for which the Crown Advocate has moved and we order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and we hope that you will take advantage of the facilities in the prison to crack your dependency on drugs and to make something of your life when you come out. We discharge the probation order. Authorities A. G.-v-Corcoran and Sutcliffe (22 nd April, 1998) Jersey Unreported. A. G.-v-Wilkie (2 nd March, 2000) Jersey Unreported. A. G.-v-Johnson (2 nd December, 1996) Jersey Unreported. A. G. -v-Harris and Ors (30 th January, 1998) Jersey Unreported. A. G.-v-Prior and Ors (25 th November, 1994) Jersey Unreported. 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.