AG -v- Samson and Hawkins [2015] JRC 154A (13 July 2015)

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. You both have a long history of drug misuse. You have poor records which include numerous offences for dishonesty, often committed when under the influence of drugs or in order to get money for drugs. As a result of your drug misuse and previous convictions, you both also have poor work records. Now you are before the Court again. Samson, you have pleaded guilty to the illegal entry and robbery and receiving and Hawkins, you have pleaded guilty to the illegal entry and driving without insurance.

2. Samson, the receiving offence was a particularly mean one. Following the breakup of your relationship you were living at Sanctuary House, a charity which provides accommodation for men in your position. Despite this you received a bag containing medication and some £10 in cash which had been stolen from that house. The most serious offence, of course, is the robbery and the linked illegal entry. Samson, you gained entry to the room of the 71 year old male victim who was in bed. A duvet was pressed over his face and it led him to believe that, if it were not for his tracheotomy, he would have been unable to breathe. You took some of his pills. The Court has read the victim impact statement and we know that you both have as well, and you will have seen from that the effect that this robbery has had on him.

3. Hawkins, you have pleaded guilty to illegal entry on the basis that you drove Samson to the house in question but did not know that a robbery was intended. However, you went to see what was going on and you entered the victim's room whilst the offence was taking place. You joined the enterprise, in effect, and drove Samson away afterwards. So that is the basis of your plea to illegal entry.

4. Now, turning to Samson, we take note of your guilty plea and we do give you credit for that. We have read what is in the background report and we are pleased to read of the constructive use you are making of your time in prison. But robbery is a serious offence and robbery of someone in their home at night is particularly serious. Nevertheless, we do accept the submission of Advocate Bell that, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case when compared with a number of the others, the sentence of 5 years is a little too high.

5. The sentence on the count of robbery is one of 4 years; the sentence on the illegal entry, 3 years' concurrent. In relation to the receiving, we think that must be consecutive, we do not follow why the Crown made that concurrent. Nevertheless we think in the circumstances 12 months is too much so it is going to be 6 months, consecutive on that, so the total is 4½ years' imprisonment.

6. In relation to Hawkins we again give you credit for the guilty plea, we have read the background report, we have particularly been impressed with the efforts you are trying to make in prison to wean yourself off your drug dependency, we have read what has been said there, we have also read the letters from your wife, from you, and from others and we hope very much that you mean what you say in those letters. Again, we think that for your particular role, the sentence should be reduced a little. This is not to underplay the seriousness of people breaking into houses at night but the Crown has chosen to accept your version of events and therefore the Crown is bound by that. Therefore we must sentence on that version and that version is that you had no idea this was going to take place and you only joined it at the last moment; your sole involvement was, in effect, to drive them away. In those circumstances we think the Crown's conclusions are just a little too high.

7. In the circumstances, on the count of illegal entry, it is 2½ years' imprisonment; the driving whilst disqualified, we think that given your numerous previous convictions for that offence 6 months is entirely correct and that is to be consecutive, so the total is 3 years' imprisonment. We cannot agree to the suggestion of a non-custodial sentence in all the circumstances, and you are disqualified from driving for 4 years. Authorities Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey 3rd Edition. Gill v AG [1999] JLR N 18c. Gill-v-AG 1999/160. AG v Bailey [2009] JLR N 19. AG-v-Bailey [2009] JRC 077 . AG v Da Silva [1997] JLR N 14A. AG-v-Da Silva 1997/218. AG v Wylie [2002] JLR N 6. AG-v-Wylie 2002/13. Stopher and Louis v AG [1990] JLR 222 AG v Botting and Others [2003] JRC 105 . AG v Samson [2013] JRC 081 . AG v King [2013] JRC 048 . R v Webbe [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 22 . Page Last Updated: 27 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII