Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Vibert [2012] JRC 032A (10 February 2012)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Given the defendant's history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties and the seriousness and totality of the offences, a custodial sentence of youth detention is justified under Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 3 years' youth detention
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

02

Material facts

Parties

Unknown (Defendant)

Defendant

Attorney General (Crown)

Prosecutor

Amounts and remedies

  • Value of Bracelet Received: GBP 1,800
  • Total Value of Goods Taken or Received: GBP 3,500
  • Total Youth Detention Sentence: years 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mitigation based on youth and personal problems; consideration for non-custodial sentence.
Respondent
Seriousness and totality of offending, failure to respond to non-custodial penalties, aggravating factors including offences committed while on bail.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994, Article 4

    Custodial sentences are justified where non-custodial penalties have failed and the totality of offending is serious.

  2. 02

    General sentencing principles; referenced in judgment

    Offences committed while on bail are aggravating factors in sentencing.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Given the defendant's history of failing to respond to non-custodial penalties and the seriousness and totality of the offences, a custodial sentence of youth detention is justified under Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994.

Obiter and limits

  • The removal of staff tips was a particularly mean example of theft.
  • The defendant's attitude towards the court and authorities demonstrated disregard and was unacceptable.
  • The period of detention should be used positively for rehabilitation and skill development.

Court disposition

convicted and sentenced

  • 3 years' youth detention
  • forfeiture and destruction of drugs

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

[2012] JRC 032A

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. You are here to be sentenced for 18 offences of breaking and entering or attempting to break and enter, for 3 offences of larceny, breach of the peace, possession of cannabis and for receiving a bracelet valued at £1,800. In those breaking and entering offences you have shown a complete disregard for those running small businesses and for their staff. The removal of the tips which had been put by customers for staff is a particularly mean example of that theft. The offending took place on numbers of occasions over a period of 7-8 months. The total value of goods taken or received was something in the order of £3,500 so these are significant offences. There is no doubt at all that a custodial sentence is right in principle. Your offences are aggravated by the fact that many of them were committed while you were on bail for other charges. And just to make sure you understand that - by committing offences when you are on bail you are, in effect, telling the Court that has trusted you by putting you on bail, that you do not care about the Court; and that is why it aggravates the offences which you then commit. Telling the Court that you do not care, that disregard, is also quite clearly shown in the way you have treated the police and the authorities; your language, your threats to cause the officers harm, it is all just completely unacceptable.

2. What we have had to consider, because the Law requires us to do so, is whether the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994 has the result that you should not be given a sentence of youth detention in this case. We have considered it. In our view you have a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties, that is quite plain from your appalling record, and also the totality of offending here is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified and so on both those grounds we think that the provisions of Article 4 are met and on both those grounds, therefore, we think that the sentence of youth detention is right. I must explain to you that you may be subject on release to a period of supervision on your release in accordance with Article 10.

3. You have had some problems in your life so far. It is important you recognise that there is no-one who is in control of your life except you. During your time in custody I hope that you will ponder that. You can spend your life in and out of prison or you can enjoy the liberties and the freedoms which all of us have, as long as we do not commit serious offences, and that ultimately is your choice. We have considered the totality of the sentence which has been called for and of course considered your youth and the mitigation that has been mentioned in the Crown's papers, but we think that the period of 3 years' youth detention is right. It is going to allow you a substantial period off drugs; it is going to allow you to gain skills from the courses which are offered in the Young Offenders Centre and later in the prison. You can view the sentence negatively or positively. If you view it negatively you will probably condemn yourself to going in and out of prison for the rest of your life. If you view it positively, and you use the courses which are offered, there is hope for the future and you want to think about that.

4. We sentence you in accordance with the Crown's conclusions; the total is 3 years' youth detention. The sentences are in accordance with the schedule which is in the papers which the Crown has given; 18 months on Count 1, 2 weeks on Count 2, 2 weeks on Count 3, 18 months on Count 4, 18 months on Count 5, those all run concurrently. 12 months on Count 6, 18 months on Counts 7 and 8, 12 months on Count 9, 18 months on Count 10, 12 months on Count 11, 18 months on Counts 12, 13 and 14, 12 months on Counts 15 and 16, 18 months on Count 17, 1 month on Count 18, 18 months on Count 19, 12 months on Count 20, 18 months on Count 21, 18 months on Count 22, 6 months on Count 23 and 18 months on Count 24, and all those sentences in respect of Counts 6 - 24 run concurrently with each other, and consecutively to Counts 1 - 5, making a total of 3 years' youth detention.

5. We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs. Authorities Criminal Justice (Young Offenders)(Jersey) Law 1994. Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey. AG-v-Gaffney 1995/101. AG-v-Pietrzyk and Lipski [2011] JRC 200 . AG-v-Vibert [2010] JRC 234 . Page Last Updated: 13 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-Gaffney 1995/101

Case cited

AG-v-Pietrzyk and Lipski [2011] JRC 200

Case cited

AG-v-Vibert [2010] JRC 234

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.