AG v Alexander and Page [2002] JRC 231 (05 December 2002)

AG v Alexander and Page [2002] JRC 231 (05 December 2002)

Given the professional nature of the crimes, lack of remorse, and criminal records, substantial custodial sentences are warranted despite mitigation for guilty plea and youth. No justification for distinguishing between principal and receiver in sentencing for receiving stolen property.

Citation
[2002] JRC 231
Parties
Defendant: Alexander; Defendant: Page; Prosecutor: Crown Advocate
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Burglary, Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, Sentencing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander

Defendant

Page

Defendant

Crown Advocate

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for burglary and theft
  2. 2 Mitigation for guilty plea and youth
  3. 3 Effect of prior indication by Magistrate

Ratio Decidendi

Given the professional nature of the crimes, lack of remorse, and criminal records, substantial custodial sentences are warranted despite mitigation for guilty plea and youth. No justification for distinguishing between principal and receiver in sentencing for receiving stolen property.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • Alexander: 15 months' imprisonment (count 1), 18 months' imprisonment (count 2), £200 fine or 2 weeks' imprisonment (count 3), 2 months' imprisonment (count 4), 2 months' imprisonment (count 5), all concurrent; disqualified from holding a driving licence for 12 months.
  • Page: 15 months' imprisonment (count 6), 15 months' imprisonment (count 7), 1 month's imprisonment consecutive (count 8), total 16 months' imprisonment.