AG -v- O'Shea [2011] JRC 136A (08 July 2011)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. You have a poor record, as your Advocate has admitted, including some 35 previous offences of dishonesty and you also have a long standing drug problem which means that you steal to feed the habit, and on this occasion you stole in order to pay off a drug debt that you had incurred and in respect of which you had been attacked. You stole a purse from a lady's handbag and then, whilst on bail for that, you entered the manager's office in a hotel and stole over £4000 in cash together with some cheques. Much of that money represented the personal savings of the manager. You were caught the next day trying to leave the Island. We do accept that both offences were opportunistic, but nevertheless they were serious offences of dishonesty and the reports assess you at being at high risk of re-offending.

2. In mitigation you have pleaded guilty although you were initially not cooperative. We have read the contents of the reports, we have listened carefully to what your Advocate has said and we have read the letter which you wrote to us when we retired. Your real problem is that until you address your drug problem you are likely to find yourself re-offending and going back to prison, possibly for longer and longer spells. We were encouraged to hear that during your time on remand you have taken steps to try and address your drug problem. We were pleased to hear of the fact that you have benefited from the counsellor there and we do urge you to continue with that work for the remainder of your sentence, because your only hope of turning your life around, which you say you want to, is to overcome your drug problem so that when you come out you can break away from this cycle, find employment and begin a normal life. So we hope very much that you mean what you say and that you do intend to turn your life around.

3. But in the meantime you have to go to prison for these offences. We have carefully considered everything that your Advocate has said but we feel that the conclusions of the Crown are right and therefore the sentence is 3 months' imprisonment on the first count and 2 years' imprisonment on the second count, concurrent, which makes a total of 2 years. Authorities AG-v-Gaffney [1995] JLR N22b. AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101. Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII