Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/48

4 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

17^th March, 2000

 

Before:    M.C. St. J. Birt, Deputy Bailiff, and

                                                      Jurats de Veulle and Tibbo.

 

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

Matthew John Higham

 

 

First Indictment:

 

1 count of      breaking and entering and larceny (count 1);

1 count of      malicious damage (count 2);

 

Second Indictment:

 

1 count of      having offensive weapon, contrary to Article 27 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law, 1956 (count 1);

1 count of      conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace (count 2);

 

Age: 31.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

 

A breaking and entry occurred at a doctor's surgery at night.  Entry was gained through the smashing of a window.  Various prescribed drugs to the value of £150 were taken from a doctor's bag and cash to the value of £8 was taken from an envelope located in a drawer of a cabinet in one of the offices.  A search of the vaccine 'fridge had been carried out but the offender had left the 'fridge door open necessitating the destruction and subsequent replacement of vaccines to the value of £972.77.  The accused's fingerprints were matched to fingerprints found on the envelope.

 

Whilst on a warning from the Magistrate's Court in respect of the above offences the accused in the early hours of the morning entered the Accident and Emergency Department of the General Hospital in an intoxicated state.  He requested to speak to a psychiatrist.  The Duty Doctor formed the opinion that Higham was intoxicated and having advised him to go home and return in the morning Higham produced a butterfly knife and stated  "I want to kill someone".  The doctor was frightened for his own safety and whilst other members of the hospital staff including two patients saw or heard the incident, Higham did not directly approach anyone or threaten anyone.  A similar incident had occurred approximately 6 weeks earlier without the involvement of the police and the Crown viewed these offences as a "cry for help", although in the light of the various reports produced to the Court whether there was genuine motivation on the part of the accused to get help was questionable.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

The accused has no recollection of the offences covered by the first indictment and the various reports obtained suggested that this was caused by alcohol amnesia.  No previous convictions for breaking and entering into commercial premises.  He had accepted the evidence against him in the form of forensic evidence and therefore took full credit for a guilty plea despite entering a not guilty plea in the Magistrate's Court.

 

Second indictment accepted by the Crown as a "cry for help".  Given record and previous failure to take advantage of assistance offered by various agencies, there was a risk involved but SER recommended individualised sentence.  The accused was motivated to deal with his problems and this motivation could best be achieved by a non-custodial sentence.

 

Previous Convictions:

 

Numerous offences including offences of dishonesty (breaking and entering and larceny), public order, motoring and violence.

 

Conclusions:

 

 

First Indictment:

Count 1:       18 months' imprisonment;

Count 2        3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Second Indictment:

Count 1:       6 months' imprisonment;

Count 2        1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, but to follow consecutively sentences moved for on first indictment.

 

TOTAL:      24 months' imprisonment.

 

Sentence & Observations of the Court:

 

First Indictment:

Count 1:       15 months' imprisonment;

Count 2        3 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

Second Indictment:

Count 1:       6 months' imprisonment;

Count 2        1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, but to follow consecutively sentences passed on first indictment.

 

TOTAL:      21 months' imprisonment.

 

Breaking into a doctor's surgery at night has to be viewed as a serious matter as does threatening hospital staff and patients with a knife which would have been a frightening experience for them.  The hospital staff are entitled to expect the Court to impose an appropriate sentence for such conduct.  Defence Counsel made a strong case for an individualised sentence and careful consideration was given by the Court to the three reports.  Having regard to the nature of the offending and the general background of the accused, the Court concluded that a custodial sentence was appropriate.  However, the Court was impressed by the assistance that the accused was obtaining from the Alcohol and Drug Service and the Court expressed the hope that that assistance would continue to be given to him whilst in custody.

 

 

J.C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate R. Juste for the Accused.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:  To break into a Doctors' Surgery at night and steal drugs is a serious matter.  Similarly, brandishing a knife in the Accident and Emergency Department was no doubt very frightening for all those who witnessed it, even if you did not intend to threaten people with it.  Those who work in a hospital are entitled to look to the Courts to impose a sentence which marks the seriousness of what occurred.

 

We have, however, heard a strong case put by Miss Juste as to whether this matter can be dealt with by way of an individualised sentence namely probation and we have carefully considered the Probation Report, the psychiatric report and also a report from the Drug and Alcohol Service.  We have concluded that we cannot proceed on that basis.  The offences in this case, together with the general background situation as described in the reports, leads us to the conclusion that a custodial sentence must be imposed.  However, we think that we will vary the conclusions slightly.  Stand up, please, Higham. With regard to the first indictment, you are sentenced, in relation to the breaking and entering, to 15 months' imprisonment and for the malicious damage to 3 months' imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 15 months' imprisonment on the first indictment rather than the 18 months asked for by the Crown.  In relation to the second indictment, on count 1, we impose a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment for possession of an offensive weapon and on count 2, we impose a sentence of 1 month's imprisonment, concurrent, making a total of 6 months' imprisonment on the second indictment, the second indictment to follow consecutively sentences passed on the first indictment, making a total of 21 months' imprisonment, rather than the 24 months asked for by the Crown.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the knife.

 

We would add that we were impressed by the assistance you are getting from the Drug and Alcohol Service and we would very much like that to continue, because we think that this will help you in the future when you are released.  We, therefore, express the hope that the help which the Drug and Alcohol Service has been giving you can be continued whilst you are in custody.

 

Authorities

 

 

AG -v- Gaffney (5^th June, 1995) Jersey Unreported.