AG v Munks [2003] JRC 231 (12 December 2003)

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You have a poor record for one so young. You have a history of shoplifting, no doubt usually to feed your drug habit, although we accept what your advocate says, that on this particular occasion these two offences were not committed for that purpose.

2. Now you are before us again for two more shoplifting offences as well as receiving and being in possession of Class C drugs and driving offences. As recently as May of this year you were given a further chance by the Magistrate's Court because you were placed on community service for other offences; but you did not take advantage of that. You re-offended and you only carried out 10 hours of work.

3. We do, however, take note of your guilty plea. We accept that you are remorseful and in particular we note what your advocate has said about your desire to try and change things. We hope that you mean it. It is clear that there is good in you. You can be a good employee; we have seen the references and those for whom you have worked think highly of you. It is very sad that you ruin that potential by your repeated offending. In our judgment, given the history of offending and the recent breach of community service, there is no alternative to a custodial sentence.

4. The important thing we must look at is the total sentence to be passed. Looking at that we think the Crown's conclusions are correct. We think a total of 15 months' imprisonment, bearing in mind the breach of the community, service is right. We do, however, make certain minor variations. In particular we think that although Mr Hopwood submitted that 4 months was too much for the two larceny offences, we on the contrary think that those two offences are more serious than the single offence of receiving bearing in mind the number of previous shoplifting offences you have committed and the fact that there were two of them.

5. We note the references to the five cases to which Mr Hopwood referred us but really one can derive no assistance whatsoever from cases where the sentence related to a large number of offences some of which were more serious than others.

6. The sentence is as follows: count 1, I month's imprisonment. Count 2, 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent. Count 3, 5 months' imprisonment consecutive. Count 4, 5 months' imprisonment concurrent, with count 3. Count 5, dangerous driving, we agree with the Crown's amended conclusions that a £1000 fine is not right as you cannot pay that, and a 1 month sentence of imprisonment, concurrent is what we impose, together with disqualification from driving for 12 months. Count 6 careless driving, £100 fine or 1 week's imprisonment in default of payment, concurrent. Count 7B, 3 months' imprisonment, consecutive. That comes to the same total of 9 months and then for the offences for which you were placed on community service, we note that the Magistrate's Court suggested that it had 6 months in mind. We note that you carried out 10 hours, but in our judgment there is no deduction to be made. You have not done enough to deserve that so we impose a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment, consecutive, concurrently on all the offences for which you were dealt with by the Magistrate's Court. Therefore the total is, as we say, is 15 months' imprisonment and 12 month's disqualification. Authorities AG -v- Corvel (2 nd March 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/55]. Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2 nd Ed'n): paras 240-414. A. G. -v- Mallon & Ors (2 nd August,

1996); Jersey Unreported; [1996/143]. A. G. -v- Munks (16 th June, 2000); Jersey Unreported; [2000/105]. A. G. -v- Sandland [2003] JRC111. A. G. -v- Gardner (22 nd November, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/223]. A. G. - Matson (6 th July, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/143]. A. G. -v- da Silva (9 th March, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/60]. A. G. -v Durkin (7 th August, 1998) Jersey Unreported [1998/171]. Page Last Updated: 27 Mar 2017 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII