AG v Rawlinson [2011] JRC 115 (17 June 2011)

AG v Rawlinson [2011] JRC 115 (17 June 2011)

A custodial sentence is imposed because the defendant has repeatedly failed to comply with non-custodial sentences and the seriousness of the offences, including theft from vulnerable victims, justifies no lesser penalty. The totality principle and mitigation for youth and guilty plea were considered in determining sentence length.

Citation
[2011] JRC 115
Parties
Defendant: Unknown (Defendant); Prosecutor: Crown Advocate
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Youth Offenders, Burglary, Theft
Criminal Law Sentencing Youth Offenders Burglary Theft

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Defendant)

Defendant

Crown Advocate

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a custodial sentence is appropriate for a repeat youth offender with a history of non-compliance with non-custodial sentences
  2. 2 Appropriate length and structure of sentence given totality of offending and guilty plea

Ratio Decidendi

A custodial sentence is imposed because the defendant has repeatedly failed to comply with non-custodial sentences and the seriousness of the offences, including theft from vulnerable victims, justifies no lesser penalty. The totality principle and mitigation for youth and guilty plea were considered in determining sentence length.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • 18 months' youth detention on earlier indictment
  • 18 months' youth detention on current indictment, consecutive to earlier sentence, total 3 years' youth detention