AG v Richomme (Royal Court : Hearing (Criminal) : Le Cocq) [2025] JRC 267 (17 October 2025)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. On 3 October 2025, we sentenced Andrew James Richomme as follows: Count 1 (breaking and entering and larceny) - 12 months' imprisonment Count 2 (taking a vehicle without consent) - 4 months' imprisonment Count 3 (driving a motor vehicle without a licence) - no separate penalty Count 4 (using a motor vehicle without third party insurance) - 4 months' imprisonment Count 5 (taking a vehicle without consent) - 4 months' imprisonment Count 6 (driving a motor vehicle without a licence) - no separate penalty Count 7 (using a motor vehicle without third party insurance) - 4 months' imprisonment Count 8 (breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime) - 12 months' imprisonment All sentences to be served concurrently with that imposed for Count 1, making a total of 12 months' imprisonment.

2. When we handed down sentence we indicated that we would give reasons for that sentence on a subsequent occasion. These, in brief, are those reasons.

3. The Defendant is a 29-year-old man. He is not of good character and has some 15 previous convictions for dishonesty offences and is currently serving a 4-year prison sentence for offences similar to those in respect of which he has been sentenced.

4. On 26 May 2024, police were notified that the Methodist Centre had been broken into in the early hours of the morning. The Defendant was seen on CCTV footage just before 3.00am unlocking the door from inside the building and carrying a plastic bag. He left the building and returned to it on a number of occasions before finally leaving. Whilst inside, he looked around before damaging a donation box and taking approximately £30 - £40 in cash from it. He left a large kitchen knife with a serrated blade on the window ledge within the building and he had apparently used that knife to gain access to it. His DNA was present on the knife.

5. Two days later on 28 May 2024 at about 9.40am, police were notified that a silver Daewoo Matiz ("the Matiz") was found abandoned on a yellow-painted box at Highlands College campus. The doors to the car were left open and the lights left on. The owner of the Matiz confirmed the vehicle had been lent to an employee who had parked the car in Ann Street the night before. It was left unlocked with keys inside. The Defendant had unlawfully taken and driven the Matiz and abandoned it at Highlands. A forensic analysis of a swab of the steering wheel found DNA components which originated from the Defendant.

6. On 24 June 2024, a grey VW Beetle ("the Beetle") was found abandoned in Grouville. It was warm to the touch and when inspected a blue fob with a string attached was found on the driver's seat. The Defendant had unlawfully taken and driven the Beetle and abandoned it at that location. The Beetle had sustained damage at the offside rear wheel arch and significant scratch marks were found on both rear wheel arches. The owner of the Beetle confirmed that she had not given anyone permission but had parked the car on the morning of 23 June 2024 in a gated area at Victor Hugo apartments. CCTV footage shows the Defendant during the early hours of the morning entering the covered car parking area where the Beetle was located and he tried the doors of several vehicles. Subsequently CCTV footage shows the Beetle pulling forward out of the space and moving towards the wall. The Defendant got out of the Beetle and pushed it back and manoeuvred it towards the carpark exit. He drove the Beetle out of the carpark area at approximately 3.50am.

7. Upon reviewing the CCTV footage two officers were able positively to identify the Defendant as the male seen on that footage.

8. In interview, the Defendant denied taking the vehicles.

9. On 21 July 2024 at approximately 3.40am, police were notified that there was unusual movement detected within the Methodist Centre. CCTV footage showed the Defendant wearing a hooded top inside the café area of the Church. He attempted to remove the screw from a sliding office window to gain access to the office.

10. With regard to breaking and entering, in the Attorney General v Gaffney [1995] JRC 101 , the Royal Court, having been invited by the Crown to set guidelines and declining to do so, noted: "Each case will have an infinite number of variations and will depend, for example, on the amount of force used, the quantity of goods stolen and their value, the time of day and whether the act was impulsive or planned." 11. In Whelan Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey, 2 nd edition , the learned author noted: "It remains importantly true that the offences of breaking and entering and larceny are not susceptible to a rigid sentencing structure because they are so various in form." 12. The Crown has put before us a number of example cases and although some of these cases were quite aged, there appears to be a de facto range of between twelve and twenty-four months' imprisonment for breaking and entering of commercial premises. There is of course an important distinction between commercial premises and dwelling accommodation, the latter being significantly more serious, and whether or not the offence takes place during the day or at night. The vulnerability of the premises is also of significance as, of course, is the nature of what may have been taken, its value and the damage that may have been done.

13. In this case the breaking and entering was with respect to church premises which may therefore be considered vulnerable; and it took place at night. The damage done, however, was minimal and there was not a high value of goods taken.

14. With regard to the motoring offences, and in particular the offences of taking and driving away, we have before us the Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines which, whilst not binding, are of some assistance in identifying appropriate starting points. The maximum sentence for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent or authority with regard to a second or subsequent conviction is three years' imprisonment and a fine. The guidelines suggest a starting point of two months' imprisonment.

15. An important factor in this case is that of delay. The Crown accept that the matters presently before us could have been brought before the Court in February 2025 before the Defendant had been imprisoned so the Defendant could have been sentenced for the totality of his offending then. We ask ourselves, therefore, what the overall sentence the Defendant would probably have received had he been sentenced for all of his offending when it was possible to do so.

16. We also take the view that the Defendant is entitled to full credit for a guilty plea.

17. There is no doubt about it that the Defendant has a poor record and therefore has no credit by way of good character. Some of the offending shown on the Defendant's record is similar in type to the offending in the instant case and therefore there is an element of protection of the public which comes into play.

18. However, when the Defendant was sentenced on the last occasion (and accordingly at a time when he had already committed the offences we are dealing with today), he was urged to take advantage of his time in prison to address the causes of his offending and attempt to lead a more pro-social life.

19. The Court was particularly concerned because of his mental health difficulties, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD and other challenges. He has had an extremely challenging childhood and the Court took that into account on the last occasion. Given that the offending that we are dealing with today took place before the Court passed sentence on the earlier occasion, we feel that it is open to us to take it into account in the same way today.

20. We note that the Defendant has expressed regret and has sent a letter to the Court. We accept that expression of regret and remorse as genuine for our purposes, and we think that there is some room for optimism that the Defendant is seeking to address his offending behaviour and live a different life. He has taken very positive steps whilst in prison and we have no reason to think he will not continue to do so.

21. It was submitted in the Attorney General's conclusions that the motoring offences, being of a different type, should attract a consecutive sentence to the breaking and entering offences. As a matter of principle, this is not wrong, but with regard to our view of totality and the likely sentence that the Defendant might have received were he sentenced at the first proper opportunity together with all his other offending, then we proposed to treat the motoring offences as concurrent to Count 1 on the indictment.

22. Accordingly, in the light of all of the factors that were presented to us, we imposed the sentence referred to in paragraph 1 above which would be added to the sentence that the Defendant is currently serving.

23. We declined to make any order for disqualification from driving because any appropriate order would already have expired significantly before the Defendant will be released. Authorities Attorney General v Gaffney [1995] JRC 101 . Whelan Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey, 2 nd edition. Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines. Page Last Updated: 29 Oct 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII