BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Lusk [2002] JRC 51 (01 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2002/2002_51.html Cite as: [2002] JRC 51 |
||
[New search] [Help]
2002/51
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
1st March, 2002
|
Before: |
F.C. Hamon, Esq., O.B.E., Commissioner and Jurats Rumfitt and Le Breton. |
The Attorney General
-v-
John Paul LUSK
|
1 count of: |
receiving stolen property. (count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Causing a breach of the peace by fighting (count 2). |
Plea: Guilty
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
£500 fine or 6 weeks imprisonment in default of payment |
|
Count 2: |
£100 fine or 7 days imprisonment in default of payment. |
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
P. Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate A.J. Clarke for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. The two counts before us might well have been dealt with at the Magistrate's Court. It is because Lusk faced a charge of grave and criminal assault that he was committed to this Court with a second count of receiving stolen property. The serious charge was abandoned and instead a charge of causing a breach of the peace by fighting was substituted.
2. There is no power for this Court to refer cases back to the Magistrate's Court. We have therefore had close regard to the Magistrate's guidelines on penalties.
3. Drink was the root cause of this fight which was mindless. Lusk was drunk, having consumed 12 to 13 bottles of Becks and Tiger beer. The complainant's ankle was fractured as the two men fought on the ground and we are satisfied that it was not caused by any deliberate act. The fight occurred in May and the prosecution abandoned the prosecution on the charge of grave and criminal assault in November, 4 days before Lusk's criminal assize trial was due to begin.
4. We have had that delay explained to us. We cannot in the circumstances criticise the Crown for the delay but it is not the fault of Lusk, who had the worry of this case hanging over him for several months.
5. The offence of receiving stolen property is a serious one. A stolen lap-top computer worth between £1,000 and £1,500 was purchased in a pub for £200, and Lusk must have known that it was stolen.
6. You are 30 years old, Lusk, you do not have a good record but only once have you served a short term of imprisonment, and that was for breaking a Probation Order. Advocate Clarke has done everything that he can do and we are going to follow the conclusions of the Crown. You are going to be fined on Count 1 for causing a breach of the peace by fighting: £100, or 7 days imprisonment, and on the second charge of receiving stolen property £500 or 6 weeks imprisonment in default of payment. That is a total of £600. We are going to charge you to pay that at £50 per week. If you cannot pay it - for example, if personal circumstances arise - you must go to the Viscount to explain to him why you cannot pay; you must not ignore it.
7. We have an undertaking that you are going to volunteer to contact the Drug and Alcohol Advisory Panel. We think you ought to do that because drink is the root cause of many of your problems. They will help you. It would be a good thing if you could clear yourself of some of your drinking problems.
