AG v Vieira [2002] JRC 142 (26 July 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] JRC 142
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The defendant was given multiple opportunities to comply with court orders and undergo treatment but failed to do so and committed further offences, leaving the court with no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
Orders
- 6 months' imprisonment
- binding over order discharged
02
Material facts
Parties
Vieira
Defendant Counsel: Advocate SowdenAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Term: 6
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the defendant should be imprisoned after breaching a binding over order and committing further drug offences
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The defendant failed to comply with the binding over order by committing a further offence of possession of cannabis and failing to keep in touch with the Drug and Alcohol Service. Despite explanations for the failure to keep in touch, it was the defendant's duty to notify the service of any address change and comply with the treatment conditions.
- Respondent
- Advocate Sowden explained the failure to keep in touch with the Drug and Alcohol Service arose because the defendant had changed address.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning in judgment
A defendant who repeatedly breaches court orders and fails to comply with conditions, despite multiple opportunities, may be sentenced to imprisonment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant was given multiple opportunities to comply with court orders and undergo treatment but failed to do so and committed further offences, leaving the court with no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence.
Obiter and limits
- The court accepted that this was the defendant's first conviction for possession of heroin, a Class A drug, but noted four prior convictions for possession of Class B drugs.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
- 6 months' imprisonment
- binding over order discharged
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.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Now, Vieira, you were told by the Bailiff on the 25 th January, 2002, that you had come very close to crossing the line beyond which the Court would have to send you to prison. You have been given many opportunities before despite offending fairly regularly. So you were given a final chance by the binding over order in January, with conditions that you should undergo treatment with the Drug and Alcohol Service.
2. You have failed to comply with that chance. You committed a further offence of possession of cannabis on 1 st May, 2002, and then you failed to keep in touch with the Drug and Alcohol Service. Advocate Sowden explained that this arose because you had changed your address. But it was your duty to notify the Drug and Alcohol Service if you changed address. You had been given a chance, and it was your duty to keep in touch with the Drug and Alcohol Service so that you could undergo the treatment to help you.
3. We are quite satisfied that you have been given every chance and there is no alternative now but to send you to prison. You have failed to take advantage of the many chances that the Court has given you. We have considered carefully the length of the sentence. We accept that this is your first conviction of possession for heroin, a Class A drug, but you already have four convictions for possession of Class B drugs, and in all the circumstances we think that the conclusions are correct.
4. The sentence of the Court is 6 months' imprisonment, and the binding over order is discharged. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 22 Sep 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
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.