The Attorney General v Ian James Young (a.k.a. Ian James Corrigan)

2002/196A

ROYAL COURT (Samedi Division) 17th October, 2002 Before: M.C. St. J. Birt, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, and Allo. The Attorney General -v- Ian James Young (a.k.a. Ian James Corrigan) First Indictment 1 count of: Taking away and driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, contrary to Article 28(1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1956. (Count 1). 1 count of: Using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, contrary to Article 21 of the Motor Traffic (Third Party Insurance) (Jersey) Law 1948. (Count 2). 1 count of: Driving a motor vehicle with no licence, contrary to Article 3 (1) of the Road Traffic (Jersey) Law 1959. (Count 3). Second Indictment 1 count of: Demanding money with menaces. (Count 1) Age: 29 Plea: Guilty Details of Offence: First indictment -Defendant observed driving a car belonging to a female who lived at an address where he had been lodging. At interview he admitted taking and driving away the vehicle without permission of the owner and admitted not holding a driving licence or motor insurance. Second Indictment – Prosecution had to proceed on basis of defendant’s version of events. Initially, the defendant’s girlfriend provided him with a false alibi but he later admitted he was at the material address. The defendant claimed he had been sold poor quality heroin and he had returned to his supplier (Mr R) to demand a refund. He

said that when he arrived, there were already two men at the premises, and Mr and Mrs R were in a highly distressed state. Mr R ran away whereupon Mrs R became hysterical. The defendant claimed it was mere coincidence and that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He said all he had done was to tell Mrs R that nothing would happen to her, provided her husband handed over the money being demanded. Mr and Mrs R later described three assailants, one of whom was armed with a machete and one armed with a knife. The machete was recovered but revealed no forensic evidence. The knife was never found. Whatever the defendant’s rôle, Mrs R was clearly terrified and in fear of her safety. This was accepted by the Defendant. He admitted being a heroin addict. Details of Mitigation: Following death of defendant’s father when defendant was 27, he tried to take care of his mother, but she was an alcoholic who died of liver failure shortly after the death of her husband. Subsequent to this, the defendant’s drug abuse escalated. On the night of the offence, he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms and the craving for heroin. Various references handed up. A letter of remorse from the defendant. Spent 7 months on remand. Defence urged a residential rehabilitation course of 12 weeks at Jersey Addiction Group at a cost of £600.00 per week. However, his former response to treatment orders had

been poor and Mr Gafoor did not consider him suitable for treatment. Previous Convictions: Eight previous appearances in Court, including five offences involving possession of drugs. Conclusions: First Indictment. Count 1: 3 months’ imprisonment; 12 months’ disqualification from driving. Count 2: 3 months’ imprisonment; 12 months’ disqualification from driving. Count 3: £300 fine; or 2 weeks imprisonment, in default of payment. All sentences concurrent. Second Indictment. Count 1: 12 months’ imprisonment; consecutive to total sentence passed on First Indictment. Sentence and Observations of Court: Conclusions granted, but sentences to be served concurrently, making 12 months’ imprisonment in all. Court had earlier adjourned sentencing for two weeks to allow time to gather information about Jersey Addiction Group and if such an order considered by the Court, the feasibility of paying for the residential rehabilitation. Mrs S Sharpe, Crown Advocate. Advocate C.M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT THE DEPUTY BAILIFF: 1. Young, if you had been part of the group wielding a knife you would have been looking at a much longer prison sentence. The Crown has accepted that it was a coincidence that you arrived at the same time as the other attackers. We therefore sentence you on your version of events as outlined by the Crown. We accept that this was an unusual case of demanding money with menaces, but it must nevertheless have been frightening for the victim’s wife.

2. We take into account your plea of guilty and the background mitigation, which appears from the reports and which has been put forward strongly by your advocate. Your real problem is your heroin addiction. You have a poor record of compliance with treatment orders, and the Drug and Alcohol Service does not consider that you are motivated to change and does not recommend a further treatment order.

3. Advocate Fogarty, on the other hand, urges that this is a turning point; and she refers to the efforts you have made in prison to try and conquer your addiction. She asks that we refer you for 28 days assessment at the Assessment Centre run by the Jersey Addiction Group, and if you are successful for us then to place you in an 8 – 12 week residential course at the Centre at a cost of some £600 per week.

4. This case was adjourned last week for clarification of exactly what was offered by the Jersey Addiction Group and whether it could be funded. We have received supplementary reports from the Probation Service, from the Drug and Alcoholic Service, and we have heard from Mr Cutland today. We commend you on the steps you have taken to try and conquer your addiction, but in view of the contents of the various reports we do not consider that this is a sufficiently exceptional case to justify placing you in a residential course with the Jersey Addiction Group. We, therefore, see no alternative to a prison sentence.

5. We urge you to take advantage of all the assistance offered in prison. You have been undertaking a course with Mr Alborough which we urge you to continue and we also urge that, following your release, you take advantage of what is on offer. It is clear that the Drug and Alcohol Service will offer you assistance on a voluntary basis following your release, and it may be that you can maintain your contact with the Jersey Addiction Group if they are able to offer anything.

6. We appreciate that this adjournment has probably been unsettling for you. Your hopes may have been raised and in all the circumstances we think it right to make all the sentences concurrent, as follows: on the first indictment Count 1: 3months’ imprisonment; Count 2: 3 months’ imprisonment; Court 3: £300.00 or 2 weeks’ imprisonment in default; and we disqualify you from driving for 12 months.

7. On the Second Indictment we impose a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment but that is to be concurrent with the sentences on the first indictment. In other words 12 months’ imprisonment in all; and as we say, we urge you to take advantage of all the assistance both in prison and outside prison. If you are truly motivated to conquer your heroin addiction assistance is available to you. Authorities Sangster –v- A.G. (29th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported CofA; [2002/87]. R –v- Christie (1990) 12 Cr. App. R (S) 540. R –v- Hollingworth & Yates (1994) 15 Cr. App. R (S) 258. R –v- Read (1996) 2 Cr. App.R.(S) 240. Whelan: Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey (2nd Ed’n): pp266, 284 A.G. –v-Deakin (12 July 1991) Jersey Unreported. A.G. –v- Le Flock (3rd May, 2002) Jersey Unreported: [2002/93].