Monet -v- AG 12-Dec-2006 [2006] JRC 186 (12 December 2006)

Monet -v- AG 12-Dec-2006 [2006] JRC 186 (12 December 2006)

Monet's involvement, though peripheral, facilitated a serious crime; mitigation was limited but considered; consecutive sentences for disparate offences were not warranted, so sentences were made concurrent, reducing the overall sentence.

Citation
[2006] JRC 186
Parties
Applicant: Monet; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal partially allowed
Legal Topics
Illegal Entry, Larceny, Driving Offences, Sentencing, Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences, Mitigation
Criminal Law Illegal Entry Larceny Driving Offences Sentencing Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences Mitigation

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

Monet

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for illegal entry and larceny was appropriate given Monet's peripheral involvement
  2. 2 Whether the sentence for driving offences was manifestly excessive
  3. 3 Whether mitigation was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

Monet's involvement, though peripheral, facilitated a serious crime; mitigation was limited but considered; consecutive sentences for disparate offences were not warranted, so sentences were made concurrent, reducing the overall sentence.

Court Disposition

appeal partially allowed

Orders

  • Sentences for both indictments to run concurrently, reducing overall sentence to 2½ years imprisonment.
  • Driving bans remain intact.