Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Richomme [2015] JRC 096 (08 May 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Due to repeated breaches of non-custodial sentences and failure to respond to opportunities given, a custodial sentence is necessary despite youth and mitigation; sentences for breach offences are imposed, but made concurrent exceptionally due to youth and progress in detention.

Court disposition

custodial sentence imposed

Orders

  • 15 months' youth detention for breach offence (Count 1)
  • 3 months' youth detention for breach offence (Count 2), consecutive to Count 1
  • 1 week's youth detention for breach offence (Count 3), concurrent
  • 6 months' youth detention for affray, concurrent
  • Total: 18 months' youth detention, concurrent
  • Defendant may be liable to supervision upon release

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Richomme

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Bell

Attorney General

Prosecutor Counsel: Crown Advocate

Amounts and remedies

  • Youth Detention (count 1): months 15
  • Youth Detention (count 2): months 3
  • Youth Detention (count 3): weeks 1
  • Youth Detention (affray): months 6
  • Total Youth Detention: months 18

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Advocate Bell argued for rehabilitation over retribution, cited difficult background, youth, remorse, and progress in detention, referencing AG-v-Cameron and English case law emphasizing rehabilitation for young offenders.
Respondent
Crown Advocate argued for consecutive sentences due to repeated breaches and new offending, but exceptionally requested concurrent sentences due to youth and progress on remand.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182, English case law

    Sentencing young offenders should emphasize rehabilitation over retribution and deterrence.

  2. 02

    AG-v-Burrell and others [2003] JLR N53

    Where offences are committed in breach of probation or community service, sentences should normally be consecutive.

  3. 03

    Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994

    Custodial sentences are justified where there is repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Due to repeated breaches of non-custodial sentences and failure to respond to opportunities given, a custodial sentence is necessary despite youth and mitigation; sentences for breach offences are imposed, but made concurrent exceptionally due to youth and progress in detention.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court urges the defendant to continue progress in youth detention to improve future prospects.
  • Adults and young offenders must understand that failure to take advantage of opportunities given by the Court will result in penalties.

Court disposition

custodial sentence imposed

  • 15 months' youth detention for breach offence (Count 1)
  • 3 months' youth detention for breach offence (Count 2), consecutive to Count 1
  • 1 week's youth detention for breach offence (Count 3), concurrent
  • 6 months' youth detention for affray, concurrent
  • Total: 18 months' youth detention, concurrent
  • Defendant may be liable to supervision upon release

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2015] JRC 096

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. On 3 rd December, 2014, ( AG-v-Richomme [2014] JRC 240A ) you appeared before the Court for an assault on a police officer and a nasty illegal entry with an element of intimidation.

2. The Court said it was going to give you a last chance because of your youth and I am going to remind you what the Court said on that occasion:- "We wanted to make it clear to you that we really have taken a chance for you today. It is a considerable risk on our part but we think that your youth deserves that chance. It is really now up to you. If you do not comply with this Community Service Order, if you do not comply with the Probation Order, if you do not attend interviews or appointments, you will come back here and we will almost certainly send you to prison." 3. The warning could not have been clearer Mr Richomme, but despite that, only a month later you committed this affray, as described by the Crown Advocate. We accept that it was in the family home and towards the lower end of the scale as affrays go, but it was clearly very frightening for some of those who were present. We also accept that the knife was used only to threaten self-harm, but as the Court said in the case of AG v Heard [2012] JRC 132 the vice of knife crime is that one can never predict how somebody in possession of a knife will react to events.

4. Now article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 applies to you, but we are satisfied that you have shown a repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences, you have been given a number of them, you have breached them frequently and now you have breached a non-custodial sentence again.

5. Advocate Bell, who has said everything that could be said on your behalf, has referred us to what the Court said in the case of AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182 and in particular he referred us to this passage, quoting from an English case before that. In relation to youth it is said "the recognition that in consequence sentencing them should place greater emphasis on rehabilitation and less on retribution and deterrent's than in the case of adults." We entirely agree with that and that, no doubt, is why the Court gave you the chance in December; but where young offenders are given a chance and they fail to take advantage of it, then we are afraid that they must take the consequences.

6. Now we take into account the mitigation that Advocate Bell has put forward. You pleaded guilty from the outset which is to your credit; we have read the background report which describes your very difficult background; we have of course taken into account your youth and we have also read your letter of remorse and the references and the letter that your mother has written and which was handed up today. But nevertheless we cannot impose a non-custodial sentence in view of your failure to respond. As I have just indicated, adults and young offenders have to understand that if they fail to take advantage of the opportunities given to them by the Court they will pay the penalty. But we are very pleased to hear of the progress you have been making in youth detention and that you are taking advantage of the courses there. We urge you to continue to do so because, if you do, what that means is that when you are released you will be in a much better position to move forward with your life and we hope very much that that can be done.

7. Now where a person is sentenced for offences committed in breach of probation or community service, the sentences should normally be consecutive, as the Crown Advocate has said, because otherwise there is no real punishment for the new offending. But on this occasion the Crown has exceptionally asked that they be concurrent in view of your youth, and we can understand why that was so; because of your youth and in particular because of the progress you have made on remand, we are going to reduce the conclusions very slightly.

8. The sentences are as follows:- on the Breach offences, Count 1; 15 months' youth detention, on Count 2; 3 months' youth detention, on Count 3; 1 week's youth detention, the 3 months being consecutive to the 15 months, making 18 months' and 1 week's youth detention, concurrent. On the Count of affray on the Indictment it is 6 months' youth detention but, as we say, exceptionally we will make this concurrent so that is 18 months' youth detention in all. I must tell you that you may be liable to supervision when you are released. Authorities AG-v-Richomme [2014] JRC 240A . AG v Heard [2012] JRC 132 . Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182 . AG-v-Burrell and others [2003] JLR N53. Louis-v-AG [2010] JLR N 45. Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG-v-Richomme [2014] JRC 240A

Case cited

AG v Heard [2012] JRC 132

Case cited

AG-v-Cameron [2008] JRC 182

Case cited

AG-v-Burrell and others [2003] JLR N53

Case cited

Louis-v-AG [2010] JLR N 45

Case cited

Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.