AG v Richomme (Royal Court : Sentencing (Criminal) : Le Cocq) [2025] JRC 154 (11 June 2025)

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. On 6 February 2025, this Court sentenced Andrew James Richomme (-�the Defendant-�) to a total period of 4 years imprisonment in respect of counts on three separate indictments. At that time we indicated we would give our reasons for the sentence at a future date. These are those reasons.

2. The first indictment related to one count of illegal entry and larceny on 3 August 2023. The Defendant had pleaded not guilty to this offence and was found guilty by a jury after a trial concluding on 15 August 2024.

3. The second indictment related to three offences committed on 1 June 2024, specifically taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, driving a motor vehicle without a licence and driving a motor vehicle without third party insurance. The Defendant had pleaded guilty to all three offences.

4. The third indictment related to one count of possession of a prohibited weapon and one count of resisting arrest. The Defendant had pleaded guilty to both offences.

5. With regard to the illegal entry and larceny, the Defendant had entered the home of a family friend and stolen a safe with its contents and a bottle filled with coins. The Defendant and the victim had enjoyed a close relationship, the Defendant referring to the latter as his -� auntie -� and at some point in the past in a different property, the Defendant had lived with the victim when he had nowhere else to stay. He was very friendly with the victim's son and had visited the property on many occasions and the Defendant viewed the victim and her son as part of his extended family.

6. He was, accordingly, aware that the victim had both a bottle of coins and a safe in which she stored her medication and he also knew that the victim was residing in the property alone.

7. The victim was sleeping in the property at the time and the morning after the Defendant had entered the property illegally and stolen from it, awoke to find that the safe was gone and that a large novelty whisky bottle containing, she estimated, approximately £500-worth of coins had been taken.

8.

CCTV footage taken in the area identified the Defendant and specifically noted him walking in the direction of the victim's property and then walking back from it with another person carrying both the safe and the bottle.

9. The Defendant denied that he had taken the safe and the coin bottle although accepted that he knew that they were in the victim's property. He denied he would ever take anything from his -� auntie -�. In evidence, the victim described the Defendant as being -� like a son, very close family -�.

10. With regard to the second indictment, the owner of the vehicle in question returned to find that it was missing. The vehicle was later recovered. CCTV footage obtained from the apartment block and carpark nearby showed the Defendant climbing over the wall and using the lift to access the carpark. He is then seen to take and drive the vehicle out of the carpark. At the time of this offending, the Defendant was on conditional bail in relation to the first indictment. The Defendant had neither a valid driving licence nor insurance to drive the vehicle.

11. In interview, the Defendant, on being shown the CCTV footage, denied being the person in the vehicle and denied taking it. He initially pleaded not guilty at the Magistrate's Court but in August 2024 changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to all three counts.

12. Whilst on conditional bail on 7 March 2024, police officers conducted a bail curfew check. The Defendant was not present and was subsequently located in Bath Street. He was accordingly in breach of his bail conditions and one of the officers informed him that he was under arrest and placed a handcuff on him. The Defendant refused to allow police officers to handcuff his other wrist and resisted with force. There was a struggle and he was taken to the floor where the other handcuff was applied. The Defendant tried to resist being put in the back of the police van and having been placed there, forced his way out and again needed to be secured within the van.

13. On being searched, the Defendant produced an object enclosed in a blue tube with two screws at one end indicating that he had made a taser for his own protection. At the time of the arrest it was not connected to a power source but tests were conducted on the object and it was established that the object was capable of giving a substantial electric shock to a person when attached to a battery. This was the possession of a prohibited weapon offence on the third indictment.

14. During the course of his arrest and detention, the Defendant had said that he wanted to use the taser on the officers. During interview and when being questioned about these remarks, he said that he was drunk and was -� taking the piss -�.

15. The Defendant's answers as to why he had the device that he had created on him at the time of his arrest were inconsistent and he gave a number of explanations as to its use and purpose.

16. Turning first to the first indictment, in Attorney General v Da Silva [1997] JLR Notes 14A, [1997] JRC 218 , the Court identified a benchmark of not less than 3 years imprisonment for burglary of an occupied dwelling at night on a guilty plea and 4 years without. There are, of course, a number of potential aggravating factors that might lead the Court to impose a higher sentence.

17. In the instant case, the Defendant entered the premises at night when the victim was in her bed asleep and there was an egregious breach of trust in stealing from a victim who considered him to be a family member and had treated him as such. He had been welcomed into the victim's home and he abused that trust by taking advantage of his knowledge of the victim and her circumstances.

18. Furthermore, he did not have the benefit of a guilty plea and the victim was accordingly put through the experience of having to re-live the event by giving evidence.

19. In terms of the second indictment, the offences were all committed whilst the Defendant was on conditional bail awaiting trial on the first indictment and similarly on the third indictment, the Defendant was on bail when resisting arrest and being in possession of a prohibited weapon. With regard to the possession of a prohibited weapon, the Crown made reference to AG v Henriques [2007] JRC 018 when an electric taser gun was found in the Defendant's home. There had been no evidence that the weapon had been used in public and Henriques , who had the benefit of residual youth, received a sentence of 3 months imprisonment.

20. The Crown has approached this matter as if it was the Defendant's intention to use the taser against persons if he had deemed it appropriate. We think that that is a reasonable inference to draw from all of the circumstances of the case.

21. The Defendant has an extensive criminal record although a number of offences were committed when he was under 18 years of age.

22. The victim of the illegal entry and larceny has made a Victim Personal Statement and it is clear that the offence has caused a marked deterioration in her mental health. She constantly worries that someone will break into her house and jumps at every sound.

23. In terms of mitigation, the Defendant does not, as we have indicated, have the benefit of a guilty plea on the first indictment and although he has the benefit of guilty pleas with regard to the second and third indictment, the second indictment pleas were entered somewhat late in the day and the Defendant initially entered a not guilty plea to the prohibited weapon offence but changed his plea shortly thereafter.

24. We have read Dr Engelbrecht's report which gives us details of the Defendant's difficult childhood and records many years of alcohol and substance misuse. We do not go into the details of that report but it is clear that the Defendant has had significant challenges and suffers from symptoms as a result of traumatic events that he has experienced. She provides the opinion that the Defendant has symptoms of ADHD and has other significant challenges.

25. In the Pre-Sentence Report, the Defendant has shown remorse for his offending but is assessed as being at very high risk of reconviction in the next 12 months. He has indicated a preparedness to work with a psychiatrist and we view that in a positive light.

26. In mitigation, the Defendant does not challenge the analysis of the Crown nor its conclusions in that they have taken into account guidelines and totality and have accounted for personal mitigation.

27. It is pointed out that there is no violence in connection with the illegal entry and there was limited planning. The Defendant's life was, so defence counsel submitted, self-harming and chaotic and he was in a downward spiral hitting, with this offending, rock bottom.

28. It was urged upon us that the Defendant's eyes had been opened and he has genuine remorse and hope for changing for the future.

29. We have read the letters of support and we accept that he has significant mitigation as a result of his background.

30. We consider, however, that the Attorney General had taken into account all of the appropriate factors in moving conclusions and we sentenced the Defendant in accordance with those conclusions as follows: (i) First indictment - illegal entry and larceny - 3½ years imprisonment (ii) Second indictment - Count 1 - taking and driving away - 6 months imprisonment but reduced to 4 months to reflect totality (consecutive to the first indictment) (iii) Second indictment - Count 2 - driving without a licence - no separate penalty (iv) Second indictment - Count 3 - driving with no insurance - 6 months imprisonment but reduced to 4 months to reflect totality (concurrent to Count 1 of the second indictment) (v) Third indictment - Count 1 - possession of a prohibited weapon - 4 months imprisonment but reduced to 2 months to reflect totality (consecutive to the first and second indictment) (vi) Third indictment - Count 2 - resisting arrest - 1 month imprisonment (concurrent with Count 1 on the third indictment) Making a total of 4 years' imprisonment.

31. We also ordered compensation with regard to the loss and damage to the vehicle that the Defendant drove away in the sum of £1,174.63 and gave the Defendant 12 months to pay for this from the date of his release. We ordered the destruction of the weapon. Authorities Attorney General v Da Silva [1997] JLR Notes 14A, [1997] JRC 218 . AG v da Silva [1997] JRC 218 . AG v Henriques [2007] JRC 018 . Page Last Updated: 20 Jun 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII