AG v Bendell [2001] JRC 49 (22 February 2001)

AG v Bendell [2001] JRC 49 (22 February 2001)

Given the defendant's repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences and the seriousness of the offences, a custodial sentence is necessary, but mitigation including cooperation with authorities justifies a reduced sentence.

Citation
[2001] JRC 49
Parties
Prosecutor: Attorney General; Defendant: Bendell
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Probation, Youth Detention, Mitigation, Breaking and Entering, Drug Forfeiture
Criminal Law Youth Justice Sentencing Probation Youth Detention Mitigation Breaking and Entering Drug Forfeiture

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Bendell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a custodial or non-custodial sentence is appropriate for a young repeat offender
  2. 2 Appropriate weight to be given to mitigation including cooperation and assistance to prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's repeated failure to respond to non-custodial sentences and the seriousness of the offences, a custodial sentence is necessary, but mitigation including cooperation with authorities justifies a reduced sentence.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 2 years' youth detention (concurrent sentences on multiple counts)
  • £100 fine or 1 month on specified counts